Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition

From: Austin Bingham (abingham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 16:56:06

On 2007-08-22, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have two answers:
>
> 1.  This is somewhat of a shocking answer, so please read through the  
> second answer before passing judgement:  The proposal purposefully  
> does not mention shared vs exclusive priority.  And I would prefer not  
> to.
>
> 2.  The implementation uses an algorithm which I attribute to  
> Alexander Terekhov.

At the risk of defiling a perfectly good metaphor, I think that if 
Alexander's algorithm is the car, then other policies are more like
light trucks, pontoon boats, and tricycles. That is, the algorithm
you describe almost certainly works as suggested, but I may really
want something completely different. For instance, I may want to
service readers as long as there are readers, potentially starving
writers. Or vice versa...my point is that I think there is room
for flexibility here. It's probably more of an academic point than
anything, but it's a point nontheless :)

I'm not really pushing for the addition of shared_mutex policy
configurability in what you've proposed. IMO it would likely 
be unneeded complexity. However, unless you're going to mandate
the algorithm you describe, I think that an explicit statement
that scheduling is undefined can't hurt. 

--
Austin Bingham