On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 16:07:13 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
12/13/2012 4:59 AM, David Piepgrass пишет:
Maybe, but I'm still not clear what are the differences
between a
normal ring buffer (not a new concept) and this "disruptor"
pattern..
Key differences with a typical lock-free queue:
But for start I'd define it is a framework for concurrent
processing of a stream of tasks/requests/items on a well
structured multi-staged pipeline.
An excellent one sentence description!
[snip]
There is also highly flexible (policy-based design) selection
of how consumers wait on data:
- either busy _spin_ on it thus getting the highest
responsiveness at the cost of wasted CPU cycles
- lazy spin (that yields) no outright burning of CPU resources
but higher latency
- and even locking with wait-notify that saves greatly on CPU
but kills responsiveness and throughput (but gives freedom to
spend CPU elsewhere)
Thanks for pointing this out.
[snip]
Another important IMHO observation is that the order of
processed items is preserved* and this is interesting property
if you consider doing the same stages as lock-free queues with
a pool of consumers at each stage. Things will get O-o-O very
quickly.
what does O-o-O mean ? >
Nick
