Subject: Re: [boost] boost.lockfree update
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-23 15:08:14
hi christian,
> This looks like a really useful addition to boost, hope you'll push it for
> review at some point.
it has been on the review queue for a while, but with the current review
speed, it may take some time :(
> Some quick feedback on the fifo class
>
> Fifo:
> "The fifo class provides a multi-writer/multi-reader fifo, enqueueing and
> dequeueing is lockfree, construction/destruction has to be synchronized"
>
> What does it mean that construction/destruction has to be synchronized?
> Both these functions can only be called once.
one shouldn't try to en/dequeue from one thread, while another thread is
running the constructor/destuctor. maybe it should formulated in a better
way ...
> fifo(void):
> pool(128)
> {
> initialize();
> }
>
> I would prefer having the default constructor to not allocate any memory
> at all. Why not expose a reserve() member function instead?
good point ...
> bool enqueue(T const & t);
> Shouldn't this function throw an exception if t cannot be enqueued?
i would prefer not to throw an exception! if a constant-size freelist is
used, the enqueue operation may fail, although no `error' occurred. i prefer
this interface
> Can the name be changed to push_back() instead, to mimic other
> std::containers? One may then, for instance, use your class with
> std::back_inserter
>
> Suggestion
> void push_back(const T&) // Throws...
>
>
> bool dequeue (T * ret)
> I think T should be taken by reference instead of pointer:
> Suggestion:
> bool pop_front(T&)
> or
> try_pop_front(T&)
hm ... enqueue/dequeue doesn't define a front or back ... not sure, whether
one enqueues at the back and dequeues the back ...
maybe simple push/pop is also fine ... i am open for suggestion about this
... taking a reference as argument is a good point!
> bool empty(void) //warning Not thread-safe
> I think this function should be removed from public interface if it cannot
> be implemented in a thread safe manner.
i would prefer to keep it, but warn about the thread safety. i am also
thinking about adding thread-unsafe version of enqueue/dequeue/push/pop,
since they can be implemented in a more efficient way than the thread-safe
versions.
one can think of a use case, that one thread fills a fifo/queue and then
notifies consumer threads ...
tim
-- tim_at_[hidden] http://tim.klingt.org Im übrigen ist es gescheiter, sich warm zuzudecken als sich zu betrinken. Werner Schwab