Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach

[Richard Braun]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 06:01:03PM +0100, Justus Winter wrote:
> 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.

It's faster because it's futexes. The fact that there is a trap or not
only matters in the worst case, and personally I'd still do it with
mach_msg for consistency (trap based messaging is just a dirty
performance hack).

-- 
Richard Braun