Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Concurrency and session termination in boost::asio
From: Scott Gifford (sgifford_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-06 11:38:39
"Igor R" <boost.lists_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> If those requests are scheduled on two different worker threads, they could execute
>> simultaneously, and still cause problems.
> Sorry, I forgot that you run one io_service in several threads... Why
> wouldn't you scale your application using "io_service per CPU"
> approach, rather than "thread per CPU"?
At first glance, thread per CPU seemed simpler. Also I was planning
on having my read callback handle some commands that may be slow, such
as database queries, and I didn't want all other clients in the same
io_service to block while that's happening. But certainly I can
> Like this:
Thanks, I had looked at that briefly, I will take a closer look.
So the advantage of io_service per CPU is that, with only one run()
thread on each io_service, requests are serialized on the run()
thread. Any callbacks are queued to the io_service(). Any client
sessions which are attached to that io_service are guaranteed that
only one callback will be called at a time. The reference material
for "strands" calls this running the io_service in an implicit strand.
If the client session is cancel()ed or close()d, does that clear out
the callback queue of anything related to that session? Or do I need
to be aware of the possibility that the session is now closed()d
somehow? For example, if I have two read callbacks queued, and the
first causes the connection to close, do I need to worry that if the
second tries to write back to the connection, the wrong thing could
happen? Or will boost::asio protect against that?
Also, should I be able to get the same per-session request
serialization by using strands?
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net