From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-26 21:52:22
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>> Here is my implementation of Terekhov's *fair* read/write algorithm,
>>> with upgradable thrown in. This algorithm is just as you say: The
>>> OS alone decides who gets to run next.
>> I'm having trouble eliminating the notify_all from the unlock()
>> "fast path".
>> Under Windows, it is ridiculously expensive; all other algorithms run
>> circles around it, even those that had errors in them. :-) Did you
>> have an
>> unconditional notify_all in your "real" unlock?
> No. I had extra 1-bit flags that let me know if there was someone
> waiting on gates 1 or 2:
> static const unsigned write_entered_ = 1U << (sizeof(unsigned)
> static const unsigned upgradable_entered_ = write_entered_ >> 1;
> static const unsigned entry_sleeping_ = upgradable_entered_ >> 1;
> static const unsigned fw_sleeping_ = entry_sleeping_ >> 1;
> static const unsigned max_readers_ = ~(write_entered_ |
> upgradable_entered_ |
> entry_sleeping_ |
> So the fast path would check these bits and avoid the notify_all if
> they weren't set.
Thanks, I'll try this tomorrow. Later today, I mean.
BTW... why do you count the upgradable among the readers? It seems a bit
simpler not to include it in the reader count; it already has a bit all for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk