From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-11 12:10:36
On 6/11/07, Yigong Liu <yigongliu_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I haven't done any benchmark yet. I don't see why concurrency using the
> proposed Boost.Join library will be inherently "slower" than other
> implementations. I have implemented some of the optimizations mentioned in
> the Comega paper (implemented in Comega compiler) using template techniques.
> I believe there are still more im provements to be made. However considering
> how much resources Intel has put into optimizing TBB.... That is also why we
> propose libraries to the community / list for review so that more experts
> can have a look of the implementation and find the weakness.
AFAIK, Intel does use lock-free techniques heavily in its thread
library to wasting time on concurrency primitives, so I do not think
the current implementation of your library would compare favorably
with it. On the other hand, I do not see why the same techniques
couldn't be applied equally to your library.
You need to be an expert on lock free programming (which I am not) to
take advantage of it, and experts in this area are still uncommon, so
you may have an hard time optimizing your library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk