Those benchmark numbers are slightly misleading, as they are a comparison of Wine+ntsync against Wine+nothing. There has been a somewhat fast "fsync" library built around Linux's futex and the gains over Wine+fsync are modest (just a few % in most cases).

That said, Wine+ntsync is still a win, just not a 8x improvement like the Dirt 3 benchmark suggests.

(And it case it's not clear, ntsync is https://docs.kernel.org/userspace-api/ntsync.html, which is a driver for Linux that offers syncronization primitives (mutex, semaphore, events) that more closely match the semantics of the Windows primitives. It's easier to do a direct implementation in Wine to support code compiled for Windows that expects to be talking to an NT kernel.)

▲

Levitating 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Though like the article mentions, fsync doesn't work out of the box (requiring kernel patches).

▲

creesch 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There has been a somewhat fast "fsync" library built around Linux's futex

The article actually goes into that in quite a bit of detail about that.

	▲	bmenrigh 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah but to the commenter I was replying to, I don't think it was clear that detail was relevant to the benchmark numbers they were quoting.

▲

torginus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do they have any other usecase behind Wine? My guess would be MS SQL server, but is that correct?

	▲	ElectricalUnion 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Starting with SQL Server 2017, native Linux support exists. Probably because of Azure.