Boost logo

Boost :

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-27 09:04:17

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>> 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.
> Works splendidly on uniprocessor, but displays the same odd behavior I've
> been seeing with the other algorithms on my Pentium D (with XP64):
> 0R+4W+0F: 46
> 0R+0W+4F: 14
> 0R+4W+4F: 10 (!)
> The Windows scheduler doesn't like us. Or I've made a mistake somewhere.
> Even if I didn't, it seems to me that the bit doesn't help in the 4W case
> since there's always a writer waiting, so we hit the notify_all.

Which mutex/condition implementation are you using? RC-1.34/HEAD/1.33.1 or

You might get different timings with each, as the underlying mechanisms are
quite different.


Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at