From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-14 06:21:27
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> How do you disagree with anything I said? Nothing in your
> description differs from anything I've said, nor does it actually
> mention any need for any specific mutex scheduling. In a thread pool
> it doesn't matter what thread acquires the mutex, and thus acquires
> the "job". All that matters is that *some* thread acquires the mutex
> and thus the "job". It doesn't even matter if a thread (or set of
> threads) is starved in this case, because the jobs are still being
> executed in a timely manner. A thread can remain idle indefinately
> and not cause any problems with the operation of the thread pool.
Using pooled threads in LIFO manner minimizes page faults.