RE: [boost] Re: Threads: Other Primitives

From: Darryl Green (green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-14 05:37:31

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bill_kempf [mailto:williamkempf_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2002 12:47 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Threads: Other Primitives
> 
> > I think a thread pool would want to use LIFO - it would seem 
> reasonable to
> > expect that the dispatch of making a more recently run thread ready 
> would be
> > faster than a less recently run one (it would be unlikely to be 
> slower in
> > any case). I can't think of any other  reason (off hand) for 
> wanting LIFO. I
> > must admit that I have never explicitly requested LIFO.
> 
> LIFO must be applied to the queued jobs, but there need not be a LIFO 
> gaurantee on any synchronization primitives to do this.  So I think 
> this is a different topic from what was being discussed.
> 
> Bill Kempf

I almost certainly don't want LIFO applied to the queued jobs. Whether my
reasoning as to why one would want LIFO dispatch of threads is correct or
not, it is definitely the waiting threads that I was suggesting one would
want to order LIFO, not the work offered to them.