> I don't think that's a valid generalization at all.
Especially given he was complaining about syscall costs . . . which are nonexistent with futexes . . .
Especially given he was complaining about syscall costs . . . which are nonexistent with futexes . . .
At any rate, you've definitely overstated the case against mutexes in this post. At most, the advice should have been "avoid designs that will suffer from a lot of contention" like locking with lots of shared mutable state. It really has nothing to do with threads-vs-processes as you've made it out to do.