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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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/