Faster mutex lock() and unlock()
marcus.brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Tue Jul 11 11:33:14 CEST 2006
At Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:57:38 +0200 (CEST),
haypo at inl.fr wrote:
> I would like to know your opinion about replacing old ath_mutex_lock() with:
I don't think so :)
We really want static initialization. Furthermore, this would
constitute an API break, which is not acceptable. Look, I think you
are over-engineering. Do you have the profiling data to illustrate
that your proposed changes have any measurable impact in your
Yes, there is a small overhead. The overhead is a lock instruction.
That's significant, but ath was not written for performance, but for
flexibility. If you really need that extra-edge, then you will have
to use a customized solution.
More information about the Gcrypt-devel