Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] countdown_latch
From: Gaetano Mendola (mendola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-13 15:19:43
On 13/05/2013 02.46, Rob Stewart wrote:
> On May 12, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 6:49 AM, Rob Stewart wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Gaetano Mendola <mendola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> On 21/04/2013 12.54, Rob Stewart wrote:
>>>>> I'd prefer to create a barrier class and, in your example, it would release waiting threads when two are blocked behind it. IOW, you'd create a barrier for two threads and both thread_proc() and the constructor would wait() on the barrier. Once both threads have called wait(), they are both released. (I plan to present that at C++ Now, this year.)
>>>> As said that's create a not needed "wait" on the thread body, what the OP (and me for the matter) needs is that *only* thread creator is blocked waiting for the threads to arrive at certain point of the execution.
>>> It seems to me that wait is inconsequential relative to the cost of creating a thread. If this were part of the thread creation process, an option to thread's constructor, say, there would be some convenience, but the performance difference doesn't seem worthwhile. Have I missed something?
>> The created thread is already executing when it gets to the latch. Why would you want to introduce synchronization, and potentially block the thread, where none is needed?
> Is the latch to just cause the creator to block until the created thread begins, or is it more general purpose to cause a number of threads to wait until they are all ready? I thought it was the latter and, if so, how can it be done without synchronization? I must still be missing something.
The latch is to just cause the creator to block until the created
At the moment with boost off-the-shelf you can achieve it using a
barrier but doing so you are blocking the thread as well, what me
and the OP needs is that the thread creator will eventualy block
waiting for the thread not the other way around. You can achieve it
using a syncronization mechanims named "latch":
myLatch.count_down(); /// This is not a blocking operation
myLatch.wait(); /// This is blocking if a count_down() was not issued
of course latch is implemented with condition.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk