Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-11 15:48:23

Le 11/01/14 19:45, Oliver Kowalke a écrit :
> 2014/1/11 Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
>> What would be the advantages of using work-stealing at the fiber level
>> instead of using it at the task level?
> it is very simple because you migate a 'first-class' object, e.g. the fiber
> already is like a continuation.
yes, but what are the advantages? Does it performs better? It is easy to
write them?
>> I wonder if the steel and migrate functions shouldn't be an internal
>> detail of the library and that the library should provide a fiber_pool.
> fiber-stealing is not required in all cases and it has to be provided by
> the fiber-scheduler hence it has to be part of the scheduler.
What i sthe cost of a scheduler supporting stealing respect to one that
doesn't support it? The performances measures should show this also.
>> I'm wondering also if the algorithm shouldn't be replaced by an enum.
> sorry - I don't get it.
I mean that if the algorithm interface is not used by the user, it is
enough to have an enum to distinguish between several possible scheduler

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