On 4/4/2014 9:43 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 04.04.2014 15:37, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> On 04/04/14 17:01, James Starkey wrote:
>>> An alternate solution that is close is thread specific sub-pools, which is
>>> nice because a thread specific sub-pool doesn't even need interlocked
>>> instruction
On 04/04/14 17:43, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> 04.04.2014 15:37, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>> On 04/04/14 17:01, James Starkey wrote:
>>> An alternate solution that is close is thread specific sub-pools, which is
>>> nice because a thread specific sub-pool doesn't even need interlocked
>>> instructions.
04.04.2014 15:37, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
> On 04/04/14 17:01, James Starkey wrote:
>> An alternate solution that is close is thread specific sub-pools, which is
>> nice because a thread specific sub-pool doesn't even need interlocked
>> instructions. It does require a fetch of thread specific data o
On 04/04/14 17:01, James Starkey wrote:
> I know of many very smart people who have tried to lick this problem
> without success. Iy feels like there should be a solution, but avoiding an
> ABA problem on release seems insurmountable.
From what I've read the only good solution for ABA problem is
I know of many very smart people who have tried to lick this problem
without success. Iy feels like there should be a solution, but avoiding an
ABA problem on release seems insurmountable.
An alternate solution that is close is thread specific sub-pools, which is
nice because a thread specific su
