|
|
|
|
|
|
by scott_s
3375 days ago
|
|
|
Other commenters have provided great responses. But to add my voice to the mix: CAS is definitely not a mutex. A mutex, by definition of the term, enforces mutual exclusion. CAS cannot do that because it is a synchronization primitive. You can use CAS to implement a mutex. Or you can use CAS to implement synchronization which does not require mutual exclusion. Your synchronization primitive does not determine if your approach is lock-based or not. It's what you do with that synchronization primitive that determines if your approach is lock-based or not. (Here, I use "synchronization primitive" to mean the processor instruction you use for synchronization. A construct such as a mutex or a spinlock is something you would build with a synchronization primitive.) |
|
|