Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes: > 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.
Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this way. But that's supposed to be an exceptional case. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
