|Keep It Simple, Stupid|
Re^5: Recursive locks:killer application. Do they have one? (counting overhead)by tye (Cardinal)
|on Feb 03, 2012 at 04:35 UTC||Need Help??|
Yes, counting requires a tiny bit of space for the counter. Obviously. Even if that doubled the space overhead of the mutex, it would be quite the rare situation when that would matter to me.
The overhead of the counting indeed looks pretty trivial to me. We are only talking about the following:
The other "overhead" you show is so locking can block, so Perl can have a single interface over multiple implementations of blocking locking on multiple operating systems, so Linux can implement a portable blocking locking interface over the current choice of kernel implementation, so Linux can detect deadlock loops, so Linux users can select different types of "wake order" behavior, so somebody can adjust "spin" to reduce context switches in certain scenarios, etc.
Which, when you realise that a non-recursive lock can be built atop a single bit, starts to look just a little indulgent.
I don't see how one can implement blocking locking using a single bit. I certainly see some overhead that could be eliminated for the particular environment you are looking at. I suspect such would require more 'ifdef' work and thus create more complexity at other layers (assuming that dropping support for other platforms is not allowed) for the sake of conditionally reducing some run-time complexity in some environments. It is possible that such might even have a noticeable benefit in such environments.
Getting rid of the counting there isn't going to make much difference. But surely you are instead implementing a new alternative, so not bothering to implement counting seems worth considering. I don't even see any advantage to exposing an API that would interfere with deciding to add support for counting at some later date (which means not bothering to implement it up front is probably wise).