-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
boost.lockfree provides: * boost::lockfree::fifo, a lock-free fifo queue * boost::lockfree::stack, a lock-free stack
I assume your data structures allow multiple concurrent writers. Have you considered benchmarking them against implementations that don't allow concurrent writes, since those are usually simpler?
these data structures are lock-free multi-writer/multi-reader implementations. i suppose, the algorithm could be simplified for single writers, but i haven't done so ...
If they're not as fast, it might be interesting to provide both. In any case, I think benchmarks would be required to properly review that library since it is in such a performance sensitive domain.
well, one aspect of lock-free data structures are throughput, the other one is worst-case execution time ... the implementation currently focuses on worst-case execution time ... e.g. intel's tbb contains a concurrent_queue class, which uses spinlocks ... it probably has a higher throughput, but its api calls are blocking
I also see your library provides an "atomic_int" type, which is a subset of what the standard library provides in C++0x. I believe there already are projects for implementing the standard atomic int types within Boost, anyone has some info on this?
the whole low-level part of boost.lockfree should be replaced, once a c++0x-style atomic library is available ... cheers, tim - -- tim@klingt.org http://tim.klingt.org The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason. John Cage. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksMItkACgkQdL+4qsZfVsvEmQCfW1cUbOxXGVa9ylw51NH7uMKB bMoAn0B2cq6KUmXuV6KLCtiatwGYg54m =TxMc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----