Re: [boost] Final benchmark graphs for Colony vs std:: containers now available

Subject: Re: [boost] Final benchmark graphs for Colony vs std:: containers now available
From: Soul Studios (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-11 20:59:33

>> ...you can have mutexes on individual blocks rather than the whole thing.
>> Also some reads and writes can occur at the same time.
>>
>
> Is there currently in your implementation a way to know to which block an
> item belongs to (or to get the size of its block, which I guess comes down
> to the same), i.e. to know which mutex should be considered. If not, could
> that be a future feature?

There's no way currently, I'd be more inclined to implement a separate 
100% threadsafe version specifically - for both performance reasons and 
to not expose unnecessary details to the end user.

> It's a shame actually that the chunk-size is not user-settable (as per the
> standard from what I understand) for a std::deque or boost::deque, the
> latter with a chunk size of 512b last time I looked. I always use the boost
> one... maybe on Windows (with VC) you should test against the boost::deque
> instead, in order to get some sensible data...

Might be a good idea for a future test, but I think the GCC results 
cover it more-or-less for now- plus it's good for people to know how 
terrible some of MS/Dinkumware's implementations are :)

> I see your implementation gives control over the first block on
> construction (and the rest then follows the growth policy), NICE! I like it!

Yes, it also gives control to maximum block size, which might be of use 
in some streaming applications where the cache size is known, such as 
games, or in memory-constrained environments.
Plus I've just finished creating a proper reserve function - though it 
shouldn't be online for another few days-