Re: [Boost-users] Strange boost::threads behaviour
On 19/02/2015 21:11, Lorenzo Trivelli wrote:
Typically the way things work is that as long as a lock (or whatever it is you're using -- you didn't actually say) goes uncontended, or minimally contended such that a spin resolves it, then it will allocate no kernel handles. A kernel handle is only required when the lock is contended for sufficiently long that it needs to put the thread to sleep.
thank you ver much for your response, I'll try to detail the issue better. The original software is an conccurrent transactional server which preallocates a certain number of ftherads (say 100 ~ 130) and then accepts and serves TCP/IP connections in a request-reply fashion.
While thread-per-connection is a popular model for older or small-scale software (because it's easy to program), performance suffers quite significantly when a large number of connections are in use, especially when each connection needs to contend on the same locks. Especially if the workload is mostly I/O bound rather than CPU bound, you may want to consider a "properly" async design (eg. using Boost.Asio) where #threads == #cores (or thereabouts) and connection processing can shift between threads as needed.
Obviuosly, it heavily uses boost::shared_ptr to handle these connections, but in the end I managed to use other shared pointers (for testing purposes only) and the boost::thread object alone and a single shared static mutex object
so, the sample program starrts, creates some threads which simply does some memory allocations loops and s. In the main function I enclosed all the code between brackets, and I print the handle count before and after, ans it's not the same, something like int main() { GetProcessHandleCount()....
{ [creates threads and waits for their termination through ->join]
} GetProcessHandleCount()....
}
The difference between the first and the last count is not always the same, it depends on how much concccurent threads you create and how much iterations of the same loop each thread does.
Well, as I said that is not an error if some synchronization objects (eg. mutexes) still exist.
participants (1)
-
Gavin Lambert