Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] countdown_latch
From: Michael Marcin (mike.marcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-26 04:01:22
On 5/26/2013 2:53 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 25/05/13 15:51, Gaetano Mendola a écrit :
>> On 25/05/2013 15.26, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>> Le 25/05/13 14:45, Gaetano Mendola a écrit :
>>>> On 21/05/2013 07.13, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>>>> Le 20/05/13 22:09, Gaetano Mendola a écrit :
>>>>>> What's the plan for this countdown_latch is it candidate to be
>>>>>> in version 1.54 ?
>>>>> No, documentation and tests are missing. I hope it will be ready for
>>>>> 1.55. This and other addition will be experimental and its interface
>>>>> will be subject to some changes.
>>>>> E.g. I have not decided yet how to provide cyclic latches.
>>>> Given the fact I have my own implementation of a latch, can you please
>>>> explain what a cyclic latch is, to see if my latch already provide
>>>> the feature. I will propose my implementation of latch.
>>> boost::barrier resets the counter once all the threads synchronize, so
>>> that the barrier can be reused again. In order to do that the barrier
>>> store the initial counter value and reuse it at each cycle.
>>> I don't know if I all the latched must support this feature (possibly by
>>> a configuration parameter) or if it is better to have a separated
>> So what are you proposing is a latch that as soon have reached 0 it will
>> reset to the initial value and permitting a wait to continue without
>> stopping if it arrives after the reset or to block waiting for a reset.
>> My latch doesn't provide such feature, but isn't enough to keep a
>> counter (reset_counter) increased at each reset and decreased at each
>> wait() (before exiting from it). This way the wait shall be a blocking
>> call if the "reset counter" is > 0.
>> I would make two different names: latch and cyclic_latch
> Thanks for your advice.
> The alternative is to have a bool parameter on the constructor and make
> use of a "restore counter" when "reset counter" is > 0 which is not too
> expensive. This needs however to store another integer for the "restore
> counter". I want to be sure that this doesn't adds any additional
> constraint to the class.
>> I'm also to remove the precondition counter > 0 on the latc::count_down.
> I don't see yet the case of a thread using countdown several times the
> same latch as a valid use case. But maybe if you post a concrete (real)
> example, it could make me change.
What about adding try_count_down like I suggested?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk