Subj : Re: Challenge: Multithreading & Synchronization
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Sergei Organov
Date : Thu May 19 2005 08:58 pm

"Uenal Mutlu" <520001085531-0001@t-online.de> writes:
> "Sergei Organov" wrote
> > "Uenal Mutlu" writes:
> > > > "Uenal Mutlu" writes:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > But if the data objects are independent of each other then it is more
> > > > >efficient to let each have its own mutex.
> > [...]
> > > In this case IMO it does not make much sense to lock X, Y, Z
> > > individually. It depends on what kind of access to the data you
> > > want for your threads. It's an issue of the application logic.
> >
> > In the above I've skipped everything and left two consecutive statements of
> > yours. Please read them... Done?
> >
> > Now I wonder are you actually one person or at least two?! Hopefully you
> >don't in fact experience split personality :)
> 
> No, I don't. But try to understand that these things are complex and
> difficult to describe.

> You on the other side are looking for simple answers to such complex
> problems.

No, I don't. It's you who are looking for simple solution to a complex
problem and believe that recursive mutex is the answer, isn't it?

> Try to understand my reply to Maciej Sobczak. There I've tried to
> explain these cases along with examples. The right decision depends on
> the access level to the data you want to grant each thread, and the
> concurreny level among the threads.

I didn't have any objection. What I'm saying is that your own statement
cited above:

> > > > > But if the data objects are independent of each other then it
> > > > > is more efficient to let each have its own mutex.

now appears to be plain wrong from your own point of view, right?

-- 
Sergei.

.