Re: Threads: Other Primitives

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-14 11:26:34

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > 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.

Ahh... this was the piece I was missing.  It's not a correctness 
issue, but one of (very platform specific) efficiency.  OK, I can buy 
this, but the efficiency will matter only to a small few.

Bill Kempf