[concurrency-interest] Class striped/ordered Thread Pool

√iktor Ҡlang viktor.klang at gmail.com
Sun May 13 07:33:06 EDT 2012


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:

> On 05/12/12 14:29, √iktor Ҡlang wrote:
>
>> Well, the entire point is to have stripes serialized, isn't it. The
>> problem is
>> that the consistent-hashing approach will make execution serial for all
>> stripes
>> that hash the same. Which is slightly different.
>>
>
> If it were not for the per-producer-fifo constraint, this could
> be solved by using incremental table expansion and self-adjusting
> hashes, as is done in Striped64 (LongAdder etc) as well as new
> Exchanger and FJ submission queues.
>
> It is possible but not easy, and probably not fast enough,
> to adapt this to preserve fifo by tracking whether any thread
> has unclaimed elements, and if so, inhibiting its hash adjustment.


I've started to strip down the most current CLQ to see what can be gained
from not supporting non-head deletes etc.

One of the issues here is that we're talking so fast operations taht doing
anything to gain speed might just end up costing more, as you say.

Cheers,
√


>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.**oswego.edu <Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/**listinfo/concurrency-interest<http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest>
>



-- 
Viktor Klang

Akka Tech Lead
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/> - The software stack for applications
that scale

Twitter: @viktorklang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20120513/4ad99712/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list