Re: [boost] [lockfree::fifo] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree::fifo] Review
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-20 11:17:43

On 12/20/2009 04:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> "Tim Blechmann" <tim_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:4B2E4492.3050201_at_klingt.org...
> 
>>> Well, IMO, it should perform better because the producer and consumer 
>>> are
>>> not thrashing each other wrt the head and tail indexes.
> 
>> the performance difference is almost the same.
> 
> Interesting. Thanks for profiling it. Have you tried aligning everything on 
> cache line boundaries? I would try to ensure that the buffer is aligned and 
> padded along with the head and tail variables. For 64-byte cache line and 
> 32-bit pointers you could do:

i am using [1] (from my topic/ringbuffer_chris branch):

static const int padding_size = BOOST_LOCKFREE_CACHELINE_BYTES -
sizeof(size_t);

cell m_buffer[max_size];
char padding1[padding_size];
size_t m_head; // = 0
char padding2[padding_size];
size_t m_tail; // = 0

cheers, tim

[1]
http://tim.klingt.org/git?p=boost_lockfree.git;a=blob;f=boost/lockfree/ringbuffer.hpp;h=2a2a28b6a7d0786255f6625431fc5bbc41cb5a69;hb=39515026acf896eae8eb9cd0e88295a1ea7afe27

-- 
tim_at_[hidden]
http://tim.klingt.org
You can play a shoestring if you're sincere
  John Coltrane