X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-AntiVirus:	scanned for viruses by soLNet AVirCheck 2.0.53 (http://www.solnet.cz/avircheck)
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:32:07 +0100
From:	Mojmir Svoboda <mojmir DOT svoboda AT illusionsoftworks DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	pthread_mutex_lock/unlock performance?
Message-ID:	<20080313093207.GB31787@msvoboda>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Operating-System:	Linux 2.6.20-2925.9.fc7xen
X-ICQ-UIN:	37571205
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

hello,

i'm runing cygwin (1.5.25?) under win xp sp2 and i ran a simple test
which was supposed to measure the speed of pthread_mutex_lock,
increment, pthread_mutex_unlock compared to interlocked increment and
windows critical section.

the thing is that cygwin's pthread_mutex_lock performs quite lazily - it
takes about seven times more than using native critical section.

i wonder why, of course :)

thanks for your attention,
mojmir

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -