On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes:
>> Sigh. DCLP, the Double Checked Locking Pattern. ...
>> I suggest you go without it, then measure, and only *then* optimize if
>> it is a bottleneck.
> That comes from me in earlier discussion before the patch, namely in
> <xmqqeg3m8y6y....@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>, where I wondered if
> a cheap check outside the lock may be a possible optimization
> opportunity, as this is a classic singleton that will not be
> deinitialized, and once the codepath gets exercised, we would be
> taking the "nothing to do" route 100% of the time.
Having followed that advice (and internally having a DCLP), I think
we have Triple Checked Locking Pattern in this patch. Nobody wrote
a paper on how that would not work, yet. ;)
In the reroll I plan to reduce it to a Single Checked (inside a mutex)
Locking Pattern, though I would expect that performance (or lack thereof)
will show then. But let's postpone measuring until we have a working patch.