Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-11 15:48:23
Le 11/01/14 19:45, Oliver Kowalke a écrit :
> 2014/1/11 Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]>
>
>> What would be the advantages of using work-stealing at the fiber level
>> instead of using it at the task level?
>>
> it is very simple because you migate a 'first-class' object, e.g. the fiber
> already is like a continuation.
yes, but what are the advantages? Does it performs better? It is easy to
write them?
>
>
>> I wonder if the steel and migrate functions shouldn't be an internal
>> detail of the library and that the library should provide a fiber_pool.
>>
> fiber-stealing is not required in all cases and it has to be provided by
> the fiber-scheduler hence it has to be part of the scheduler.
>
What i sthe cost of a scheduler supporting stealing respect to one that
doesn't support it? The performances measures should show this also.
>> I'm wondering also if the algorithm shouldn't be replaced by an enum.
>>
> sorry - I don't get it.
>
I mean that if the algorithm interface is not used by the user, it is
enough to have an enum to distinguish between several possible scheduler
algorithms.