On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 00:02 -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Thursday 23 April 2015 21:18:11 Keane, Erich wrote: > > Another alternative that I thought of based on Ashok's feedback is an > > unlimited pool-thread system (essentially functionally like the glib > > implementation, since the thread_count is greater than requested > > threads), where the threads list is stored in an array list, then can be > > joined at the end. I'm not sure what that buys us other than blocking > > until all threads have been completed, but Ashok's comments seem to > > believe that it is a necessity. > > Please don't implement our own thread pool mechanism. From experience with > doing QThreadPool, it's a nightmare to get right and fix all the race > conditions associated with idle threads exiting. > > If you do need to implement a pool, then do not expire threads: let them run > forever, once started.
I agree, ThreadPools are a nightmare, which is why I implemented the 'dispatch and detach' mechanism in the 'dumb' version. I think the only change I would make if absolutely necessary would be to store the thread_id in an arraylist so that we can Join them all at the end, which Ashok's comments suggest is necessary.
