Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc-2013] Boost.Thread/ThreadPool project
From: pavel (paul.cpprules_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-02 17:21:04

 Vicente wrote on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:40:06:
> Le 02/05/13 17:24, pavel a écrit :
>> Dan wrote on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 13:58:35:
>>> Thank you very much for the feedback, suggestions, guidance and the
>>> really fast answers.
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>> perhaps not _this_ time, that is not this 2013 GSOC, but eventually
>> you may want to consider a lock-free priority queue algorithm for
>> storing tasks and not use locks
> It was in my mind to reuse Boos.LookFree queue. Why do you need a
> priority queue here?

dan write in his proposal (the first link above) about task scheduling
priority and that the implementation may require a priority queue with

i just pointed out that it will be interesting to use particularly
lock-free priority queue for that purpose instead of locking algorithm

certainly, if boost.lockfree already had priority queue, one must have
been (re)used that implementation, and in fact it's a pity that
boost.lockfree hasn't one (as well as some kind of map/set)

as for priority task scheduling -- i consider it an essential feature
of a threadpool facility that certainly should be there

and yes, boost absolutely needs a threadpool implementation

i hope this project will be a good start

if you notice a grammar mistake or weird phrasing in my message
please point it out

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