Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 53411 invoked by uid 500); 30 Apr 2001 17:13:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 53385 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 17:12:57 -0000 From: Christian Gross To: "Bill Stoddard" , dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RW lock Iteration 2 for Windows Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:14:33 -0400 Reply-To: ChristianGross@yahoo.de Message-ID: <6b7ret8afpoj36p3q68idp48c0hcm0aa0m@4ax.com> References: <020a01c0d193$01016440$e4421b09@raleigh.ibm.com> <9n4retk40pqjjm7pputj5epee4osfljaku@4ax.com> <029101c0d197$b29db240$e4421b09@raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <029101c0d197$b29db240$e4421b09@raleigh.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N That is what I thought. I can change the code, but to be honest I do prefer Mutexes... The lock contention speed slow down is something that I seen Richter talk about. Christian On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:05:02 -0400, you wrote: >The peformance numbers I have seen indicate that a critical section is = somewhat faster than a mutex, >even when there is little or no lock contention. I've not done the = analysis myself though. > >Bill >