Re: [boost] Review Request: boost.lockfree

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: boost.lockfree
From: Christopher Schmidt (mr.chr.schmidt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-05 14:24:11

Tim Blechmann schrieb:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> hi all,
> 
> since my first review request for boost.lockfree [1] was completely
> ignored, here a second version for review. the main differences are bug
> fixes provided by various people, trying to run boost.lockfree on
> different compilers/platforms.
> 
> the original review request was:
> 
> i would like to submit a small library of lock-free data structures for
> review.
> 
> boost.lockfree provides implementations of lock-free data structures.
> lock-free data structures can be accessed by multiple threads without
> the necessity of blocking synchronization primitives such as guards.
> lock-free data structures can be used in real-time systems, where
> blocking algorithms may lead to high worst-case execution times, to
> avoid priority inversion, or to increase the scalability for
> multi-processor machines.
> 
> boost.lockfree provides:
> * boost::lockfree::fifo, a lock-free fifo queue
> * boost::lockfree::stack, a lock-free stack
> 
> updated links:
> 
> the code is available from the boost vault:
> http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=boost_lockfree-241109.zip&directory=Concurrent%20Programming&
> 
> and from my personal git repository:
> git://tim.klingt.org/boost_lockfree.git
> http://tim.klingt.org/git?p=boost_lockfree.git
> 
> the documentation is available at:
> http://tim.klingt.org/boost_lockfree/
> 
> would be nice if someone could add this library to the review schedule
> or even would be willing to manage a review ...
> 
> best, tim
> 
> 
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/192779
> 

I have been using this library for the past three weeks and have found
it incredibly useful. Thank you for your excellent work, Tim!

I have a pre-review question though. Is it possible to decouple
container and the predefined wait lists so an user may use his own free
list type? I have a use case which requires various container instances
to share only one freelist instance, and I would like to implement this
via an own free list type.

-Christopher