Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #3932
| From | aminer <aminer@toto.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads, comp.programming |
| Subject | About FIFO queues |
| Date | 2013-10-12 19:41 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <l3cmnj$1ga$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Hello, I think SemaCondvar and Semaphores are also a good alternative to build a concurrent FIFO queue, cause if there is items in the queue my SemaCondvar and Semaphores also will not context switch to kernel mode so it will not be so expensive i think, the threads will switch in kernel mode only when they want to pop() and when there is no items in the queue, so my SemaCondVar and Semaphores are a good alternative if you want to satisfy the FIFO fairness requirement and to minimize the cache-coherence traffic and to satisfy also the energy efficiency requirement. But beware the Windows Semaphore is not FIFO fair, but my SemaCondvar is FIFO fair. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
About FIFO queues aminer <aminer@toto.net> - 2013-10-12 19:41 -0700
csiph-web