Subj : Re: recursive mutexes
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Uenal Mutlu
Date : Wed May 18 2005 05:36 pm

"Markus Elfring" wrote
> > You are putting operations into 2 categories:
> >   1) operations which can be done only if the object is locked
> >   2) operations which can be done only if the object is not locked
> >
> > This is unneccessary complication, and it's dangerous.
> > My point of view is: all operations on a shared object can be done only
> > in a locked state (#1 above). So one has to forget #2 and never assume to do #2.
> > An object can be modified only in a locked state, otherwise wait or
> > give up your time-slice back to the schedular.
> > The result is: simplication, safety, speed.
>
> How does your statement fit to existing lock-free algorithms?

We were talking about locking.
Lock-free shared access is IMO an illusion, usabe for some very small
and limited cases only, but not for 99.9% of practical requirements.
And IMO they are also slower than a method which uses locking, even
if this might sound counter-intuitive.

.