Re: [boost] Re: Threads: Other Primitives

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-14 06:21:27

From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> How do you disagree with anything I said?  Nothing in your 
> description differs from anything I've said, nor does it actually 
> mention any need for any specific mutex scheduling.  In a thread pool 
> it doesn't matter what thread acquires the mutex, and thus acquires 
> the "job".  All that matters is that *some* thread acquires the mutex 
> and thus the "job".  It doesn't even matter if a thread (or set of 
> threads) is starved in this case, because the jobs are still being 
> executed in a timely manner.  A thread can remain idle indefinately 
> and not cause any problems with the operation of the thread pool.

Using pooled threads in LIFO manner minimizes page faults.