[concurrency-interest] BoundedPriorityBlockingQueue ?

Hanson Char hanson.char at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 20:58:59 EDT 2006


Hi David,

Completely agree.  That's why I am proposing if there was such thing as a
Bounded PBQ, the BPBQ per se wouldn't want to deal with the madness when the
queue is full, but simply pass the onus to the user (via the return value of
put or via exception), and let the user decides what to do about it.

I don't know, however, if such behavior and such BPBQ would be useful at
all, and hence my question to the originator, rbalamohan.

Hanson

On 9/12/06, David Holmes <dcholmes at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>  Hanson,
>
> The basic issue here is that you use a PriorityBlockingQueue to prioritize
> tasks, under the expectation that the queue will actually fill to some
> extent, so the relative importance of tasks is, well, important. You then
> place a bound on that queue and the result is you now have a second
> (unbounded) queue of threads trying to submit prioritized tasks. So then you
> wonder if those threads should be unblocked in order of priority of their
> tasks? But that way madness lies ... this isn't real-time priority
> preemptive systems programming. If you really think that the threads need to
> be queued in priority order too then make your priority queue bigger. If you
> size things out and you really must bound the size of the queue and you
> really expect lots of threads to block waiting to put to the queue and you
> really think the priority of the tasks those threads are submitting need to
> be accounted for, then you have a problem. Basically you would have to have
> each submitter check if its task is more important than the lowest priority
> one in the queue and try to swap the new task for the old one; and then keep
> retrying to submit the swapped out task. This is really, really messy. Throw
> in priority-aging to avoid starvation and things get even worse. :)
>
> Sometimes there is no complete solution - you have to define the
> boundaries where you take into account things like priority. Sometimes the
> answer is to have a completely different mechanism for things that are
> really important (most queueing systems (banks, airlines etc) don't use
> priority ordered queues, they use different queues for different
> "priorities" or allow bypassing of the queue altogether.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> David Holmes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu [mailto:
> concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]*On Behalf Of *Hanson Char
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 September 2006 6:20 AM
> *To:* rbalamohan at sonoasystems.com
> *Cc:* Brian Goetz; concurrency-interest; Kasper Nielsen
> *Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] BoundedPriorityBlockingQueue ?
>
> I see blocking on put on a BoundedPriorityBlockingQueue is not such a good
> idea.
>
> How about making the put method return a false boolean value upon queue
> full, or alternatively throwing something like a QueueFullException ?
>
> Would this be useful/sensible ?
>
> Hanson
>
> On 9/12/06, Brian Goetz <brian at quiotix.com> wrote:
> >
> > The tricky part is if you want to guarantee that the thread offering the
> > element of highest priority is first to be unblocked.
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060912/4ca70cfb/attachment.html 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list