Subj : Re: recursive mutexes
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Markus Elfring
Date : Thu May 19 2005 07:14 pm

> Sounds interessting, but I would be convinced only after testing
> their performance. And here I doubt it can be faster, because
> I myself had experimented with such structures too and had read papers
> on this, but unfortunately the performance was very poor due to the
> additional code checks one has to make. It sums up and degrades
> the performance.

Would you like to publish your test cases where you got the bad experiences from?


> This assumption is by the fact that you need to put more code to check.
> That is: more code must be executed;  even just two or three if statements
> can mean too much compared to a classical mutex method using atomic counter.

Would you like to perform a more detailed analysis to show concrete numbers for the
effects on factors like "code size", "execution speed", "memory consumption",
"concurrency/parallelization" and "througput"?
How do you think about to compare your approach with the available non-blocking
synchronization implementations?

By the way, the optimization technique "loop unrolling" can produce "more code" with
improved runtime behaviour under specific conditions.
Can you measure each statement sequence or function call with precise processor cycles and
cache latencies to get an estimation for the time ranges?

Regards,
Markus

.