[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach
From: |
Richard Braun |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:01:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 06:01:03PM +0100, Justus Winter wrote:
> I'm curious why your mechanism is faster, because you implemented it
> using messages sent to the kernel using mach_msg, and not as traps.
> This is ok for a prototype of course, but you should look at how
> e.g. mach_port_deallocate is also available as a trap.
It's faster because it's futexes. The fact that there is a trap or not
only matters in the worst case, and personally I'd still do it with
mach_msg for consistency (trap based messaging is just a dirty
performance hack).
--
Richard Braun
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach,
Richard Braun <=
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, Richard Braun, 2016/02/28
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, Samuel Thibault, 2016/02/28