Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] version 22 with default pool
From: James Mansion (james_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-09 17:15:41

Edouard A. wrote:
> In which case it would be nice to have some sort of "root" task on which
> other tasks depend. You would only need to wait for the root task to finish,
> making code simpler to write (and maybe the waiting more efficient to
> write?).
If you want a lightweight mechanism and can afford to be 'a bit wrong'
then you could just assign task ids
from a 128-bit number and return the id from submission, then you could
perhaps wait for 'lowest task > n'.

In most systems you get a more-or-less FIFO approach and it won't be far
out - and its cheap.
That or perhaps have a 'task group' facility where you can optionally
associate tasks with a group
and check the waiting+executing count per group, which might use an
atomic counter and an event
that fires iff the atomic decrement went to 0.

I think you have to allow pools to have extremely bursty usage patterns
and high throughput - anything that.
locks, sorts or otherwise stalls the queue is Bad News.


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