Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach

[Justus Winter]

Hi :)

thanks for your prototype.  I cannot comment on the primitive you
implemented because I'm lacking the expertise, however

Quoting Agustina Arzille (2016-02-28 02:53:12)
> I've tested it in many scenarios, and seems to work fine. I've
> benchmarked it as well, and it's far more faster than pthread
> mutexes implemented with "mach_msg". I'm far from being an expert in
> kernel programming, though, so so there's probably a few things that
> I've overlooked.
> [...]
> +routine gsync_wait(
> [...]
> +simpleroutine gsync_wake(

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.

Cheers,
Justus