From: MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Date: 2006-11-07T04:14:36+09:00
Subject: Re: fast mutexes for 1.8?


--=-J8CRKu0FifEZcrpNjLiG
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 03:47 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> As has been discussed further down in this thread, there isn't much =20
> to do to make Mutex faster.  The only remaining thing is to avoid =20
> Mutex#synchronize when you need to be really fast.  The block =20
> invocation overhead huge.  Instead use #lock, #unlock and ensure.

#lock and #unlock aren't that much cheaper (see benchmark from other
message).  There's enough else going on that the block invocation isn't
a huge proportion of the time taken.

Admittedly, if Mutex can be made faster then you really will see a
difference.  Can it be made much faster?  I strongly believe so, but on
that count the burden of proof's on me, so I'll just shut up and
code. :)

-mental

--=-J8CRKu0FifEZcrpNjLiG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFT4mZSuZBmZzm14ERAkC5AJ9tuXoYPRfH6CnfwLHqEPwXacFuVgCeIoHG
5IqZC5Gd7lRMYfNhPwj/u44=
=NeTb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-J8CRKu0FifEZcrpNjLiG--