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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk