> One additional comment: In the 90's when I developed this code, locking was expensive.
> Now the world has changed, we can do almost a million locks a second.

I am not sure this is quite true. The CPU can execute 3000 million operations per second (3GHz CPU, assuming 1 op/Hz),
so 1 lock operation is worth 3000 normal operations. Of course cache misses and branch mispredictions mess up
this simple arithmetic...

But I think cost of mutex lock/unlock can be easily measured. (hmm... now I am curious).

Bigger question is architectural, nested/recursive locks is definitely a bad thing to do (not just my opinion).

But closer to home, as I implemented "write protected" ODB, lock/unlock suddenly has to do MMU operations
(map unmap memory) and this is *very* expensive.

Also as we start doing more multithreading, lock contention is becoming a problem, and the standard solution
is to implement read-locks and write-locks. (everybody holding a read-lock can read ODB at the same time
without waiting).

So, moving in the direction of separate read and write locks and write-protected (and/or read-protected) ODB shared memory,
all points in the direction of reworking of ODB locks in the direction of removing the need for nested/recursive locks.

I think me and Stefan are in agreement here.

K.O.