Vicente wrote on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:40:06:
Thank you very much for the feedback, suggestions, guidance and the really fast answers. [1] http://danlincan.3owl.com/gsoc/final-proposal.pdf [2] http://danlincan.3owl.com/gsoc/Proposal.pdf
Dan wrote on Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 13:58:35: perhaps not _this_ time, that is not this 2013 GSOC, but eventually you may want to consider a lock-free priority queue algorithm for storing tasks and not use locks It was in my mind to reuse Boos.LookFree queue. Why do you need a
Le 02/05/13 17:24, pavel a écrit : priority queue here?
dan write in his proposal (the first link above) about task scheduling priority and that the implementation may require a priority queue with locks i just pointed out that it will be interesting to use particularly lock-free priority queue for that purpose instead of locking algorithm certainly, if boost.lockfree already had priority queue, one must have been (re)used that implementation, and in fact it's a pity that boost.lockfree hasn't one (as well as some kind of map/set) as for priority task scheduling -- i consider it an essential feature of a threadpool facility that certainly should be there and yes, boost absolutely needs a threadpool implementation i hope this project will be a good start -- Pavel P.S. if you notice a grammar mistake or weird phrasing in my message please point it out