Seperating cleanups from memory allocations, WAS: RE: Terminating threads in a process

[Sander Striker]

[...]
>> Are you saying you want the thread function to have access to both a
>> "scope" pool as well as an "allocator" pool, in case they are different?
> 
> I've officially graduated to the rbb (insert a decent name here) club :-)
> 
> Thank you, yes, scope pool defines teardowns such as cleanups, 
> while the allocator
> pool addresses our performance concerns :)
> 
> An obvious test is that 'allocator' is unique (e.g. thread 
> private), a parent 
> (at any depth) of the 'scope' pool, or the 'scope' pool itself.

Well, looking at this it seems that the cleanups need to be
hierarchial (almost) all the time.  The allocators seem to be
needing to break the hierarchy for performance reasons.

Wouldn't it be wiser to implement cleanup management as a
seperate entity, instead of piggy backing it on allocators?

Sander