On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:18:27AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:36:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>On Mar 9 11:08, Schmidt, Oliver wrote: >>> Hi Christopher, >>> >>> Fist of all thanks for your immediate feedback :-) >>> >>> >> /* Initialize installation root dir. */ >>> >> if (!installation_root[0]) >>> >> init_installation_root (); >>> >>> > I'll check in something tonight which attempts to solve this problem. >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> > It's a somewhat tricky problem because adding a mutex here would slow >>> > down every invocation of a cygwin program and we don't want to add to >>> > the "Why is Cygwin so slow???" scenarios if we can help it. >>> >>> I understand your concern for sure ;-) >>> >>> Maybe that's the very thing you're thinking about but ... AFAIK a >>> spinlock is the usual paradigm in scenarios where one doesn't >>> anticipate contention but needs to be aware of it 'just in case'. With >>> InterlockedCompareExchange() and Sleep() it should be quite simple to >>> create one that's very efficient in the usual scenario. >> >>Does the below patch fix this for you? > >I really do have a patch sitting in my sandbox. I just forgot to test it >last night.
And, as it turned out, it was a good thing that I had a night to sleep on it. I scrapped what I did yesterday and just piggybacked on the already existing spinlock. My previous attempt added additional testing which wasn't really necessary. http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ has what I hope is the fix for this. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
