Re: [boost] [threadpool] new version v12

Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] new version v12
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-03 09:29:26

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Williams"
> <anthony.ajw_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] new version v12
>
>
>>
>> "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Williams"
>>> <anthony.ajw_at_[hidden]>
>>>> At least with fibers you *can* migrate the task to another thread, if
>>>> your task is able to handle it.
>>>
>>> I don't see any major issue to migrate tasks when the blocking
>>> function get() calls recursivelly to the working thread scheduler. Is
>>> there one?
>>
>> If the task migrates across threads its ID changes, and thread locals
>> change.
>
> So if the task do not depends on thread specific this is safe.
>

Is there any that doesn't? Even errno is usually thread specific, and
most allocators have thread specific paths.

-- 
gpd