[vlovich123]

I can’t tell what they’re trying to say and it seemed to primarily be about priority inversion which is precisely impossible in the scheme outlined. This isn’t sacrificing any performance vs any other locking mechanism.

> Which of course leads to conversations like can big_lock be an RWLock, ArcSwap or such.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. This blog post is about a mutex type that is guaranteed to not dead lock.

And again, OP is horribly wrong on the terminology - there’s no spinning in any sane system. You ask the kernel to acquire the mutex for you if you fail and the kernel just puts your thread to sleep until the lock can be acquired. So all threads are guaranteed to be making forward progress. The ideal granularity of the locks themselves is completely irrelevant - that’s a domain-specific decision.