[chrono][thread] Best way to wait?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4cdcd/4cdcd17a691cba4a52a825a7044fad92fd130fec" alt=""
Hi, can someone clarify: 1. what is the difference between: const auto wait_time = boost::chrono::miliseconds( 8 ); boost::mutex mutex; boost::unique_lockboost::mutex lock( mutex ); boost::condition_variable wait_condition; wait_condition.wait_for( lock, wait_time ); and const auto wait_time = boost::chrono::miliseconds( 8 ); boost::this_thread::sleep_for( wait_time ); 2. are there other ways to wait? (I mean make the thread sleep, not looping until it's time) Joel Lamotte
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/48064/48064d72b0cc2a7ace5789b3da09cb4b9f086523" alt=""
AMDG On 03/29/2013 08:23 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
Hi, can someone clarify: 1. what is the difference between:
const auto wait_time = boost::chrono::miliseconds( 8 ); boost::mutex mutex; boost::unique_lockboost::mutex lock( mutex ); boost::condition_variable wait_condition; wait_condition.wait_for( lock, wait_time );
and
const auto wait_time = boost::chrono::miliseconds( 8 ); boost::this_thread::sleep_for( wait_time );
A thread waiting on a condition variable (a) can be explicitly notified and (b) may wake up before the time has expired (spurious wakeups). If you just want to sleep for a fixed amount of time, then sleep_for is the right tool.
2. are there other ways to wait? (I mean make the thread sleep, not looping until it's time)
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4cdcd/4cdcd17a691cba4a52a825a7044fad92fd130fec" alt=""
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Steven Watanabe
A thread waiting on a condition variable (a) can be explicitly notified and (b) may wake up before the time has expired (spurious wakeups). If you just want to sleep for a fixed amount of time, then sleep_for is the right tool.
My understanding is that sleep_for can wait more than the time wanted, right? So basically a condition_variable can wait less, while sleep_for can wait a bit more? Joel Lamotte
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/48064/48064d72b0cc2a7ace5789b3da09cb4b9f086523" alt=""
AMDG On 03/29/2013 08:45 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Steven Watanabe
wrote: A thread waiting on a condition variable (a) can be explicitly notified and (b) may wake up before the time has expired (spurious wakeups). If you just want to sleep for a fixed amount of time, then sleep_for is the right tool.
My understanding is that sleep_for can wait more than the time wanted, right?
You can always wait longer than you ask for. A thread can wait even if you don't ask to wait. It's entirely dependent on the kernel's scheduling algorithm.
So basically a condition_variable can wait less, while sleep_for can wait a bit more?
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
participants (2)
-
Klaim - Joël Lamotte
-
Steven Watanabe