On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:07:41 +0100, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 09/02/2012 20:57, Martin Nowak a écrit :
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:44:46 +0100, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org>
wrote:
So a queue per message type? How would ordering be preserved? Also,
how would this work for interprocess messaging? An array-based queue
is an option however (though it would mean memmoves on receive), as
are free-lists for nodes, etc. I guess the easiest thing there would
be a lock-free shared slist for the node free-list, though I couldn't
weigh the chance of cache misses from using old memory blocks vs. just
expecting the allocator to be fast.
I didn't yet got around to polish my lock-free SList/DList
implementations,
but mutexes should only become a problem with high contention when you
need to block.
You'd also would need some kind of blocking for lock-free lists.
Doesn't this require shared to be working ?
Shared is already very helpful for writing lock-free stuff.
I still need to use atomic load/store to make them portable though.
If shared would add memory fences for full sequential order one would
rather hack around this using weaker ordering.
