Le 24/07/2016 22:31, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be
harmless if there's only one. Otherwise better use select()/poll() or
you'll waste time or even dead-lock. It's amazing how the old select()
paradigm is so much better than the modern mutex. I see mutex as an
invention to relieve the programmer from thinking.
One of the advantages of having more than one thread of execution
running in the same address space is that these can communicate with
each other without going through the kernel. And 'a mutex' is just a
basic primitive for implementing this.
I thought mutexes were implementing through a kernel object known
as futex. Certainly optimised for speed, I agree. But the gain is
significant only if you use it intensively, which might denote a badly
written program, and you soon incur the risk of loosing a huge amount of
time as soon as a thread contains more than one of those.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
