Subject: Re: [boost] [threadpool] version 22 with default pool
From: Edouard A. (edouard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-09 17:52:50
> In most systems you get a more-or-less FIFO approach and it won't be
> 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.
That's a good idea. That would exhibit different things I guess.
> 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.
I haven't reviewed the threadpool code. The only glance I had at it
indicated that yes, there seem to be way too many locks around.
I will wait for the tests to point out some strange behavior before dwelling
further, because I'm incredibly lazy. :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk