Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] relation with TR2 proposal
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-26 16:12:55
Sorry for the delayed response to this thread.
Johan Torp <johan.torp_at_[hidden]> writes:
> JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
>> What is the relationship with this proposal of the threadpool library
>> that is being
>> discussed these days here at the Boost list?
> My _guess_ is that the C++ standard committee is targeting a thread pool
> which can help to ease extraction of parallel performance, not a fully
> configurable templated thread pool with lots of neat features.
The committee has decided not to discuss thread pools until TR2, at
which point all current implementation experience will be taken into
> My five cents is that it would be great to separate the concerns of a thread
> pool and scheduling. But the real value for most applications would be to
> have parallel constructs (such as parallel_for) built on a single thread
> pool with smart work-stealing scheduling and a number of worker threads
> hinted to be bound to cores by processor affinity. To my knowledge, out of
> the .NET, java and TBB, only TBB exposes its thread pool. Hence, a simple
> interface such as launch_in_pool with a decent implementation might provide
> a lot more value than a fully configurable thread pool library.
That was my thought.
-- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk