[boost] [asio] Re: Pass some parameter to io_service::run

Subject: [boost] [asio] Re: Pass some parameter to io_service::run
From: Dmytro Ovdiienko (dmitriy.ovdienko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-24 16:37:43

James, it is not academic reason. I need latency 1-2us. Right now I have
15us. I cannot waste time on locks and I cannot create bottlenecks.

And how about just let user pass "void *"? I know it is not type safe...
maybe boost has something like type-safe variable argument list?

On 11 January 2010 17:13, James Mansion <james_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> Dmytro Ovdiienko wrote:
>
>>
>>    I don't understand why you would have an objection to a permanent
>>    binding with TLS
>>
>> TLS looks like global variables. Global variables violate encapsulation. I
>> suppose to support my program at least 2 years. I don't want to hate myself
>> two years :)
>>
> I think that's quite a silly reason.  So are singletons, but they are both
> useful. ...
>
>
>>    or
>>    a temporary binding using a pool of parsers, since it seems that
>>    each datagram must be
>>    parsed entirely and then the parser reset for the next?
>>
>> Exactly. But I don't want to create pool of the parsers. Access to the
>> pool should be synchronized. Synchronization eats CPU times.
>>
> ... but not nearly as silly as this one.  Getting an item from a pool is a
> great candidate for a spinlock and if you're concerned you can easily
> segment the pool.  Its a non-issue. I defy you to measure it in the context
> of all teh context switching and system calls you're doing.
>
> Of course, the pool is a singleton. And that's like a global.
>
> The right tools to get you what you want are right there - you're just
> choosing not to use them for academic reasons.
>
> James
>
>

-- 
Dmytro Ovdiienko
e-mail: dmitriy.ovdienko_at_[hidden]
skype: dmitriy.ovdienko_at_[hidden]
mobile: [phone]
-- 
Dmytro Ovdiienko
e-mail: dmitriy.ovdienko_at_[hidden]
skype: dmitriy.ovdienko_at_[hidden]
mobile: [phone]