The Boost.Lockfree documentation discusses the difference between lock-free and wait-free. I can't say if they're using both terms correctly, but they at least understand there's a difference.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 03:48:34PM -0500, Lindley French wrote: > > A visit to the Boost libraries reveals there's a brand-new Boost.Lockfree > > library that must have arrived with one of the last few versions. You > > should seriously consider simply replacing your std::lists with > > boost::lockfree::queues using your existing logic, and see if that gives > > you the performance you're looking for before you make any massive > changes. > > Is Boost using the right term there? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-free: > > In computer science, a non-blocking algorithm ensures that threads > competing for a shared resource do not have their execution > indefinitely postponed by mutual exclusion. A non-blocking algorithm > is lock-free if there is guaranteed system-wide progress; wait-free if > there is also guaranteed per-thread progress. > > Lock-free does not mean that you don't have locks. It just means you > can't have deadlocks. You can't get stuck. Idealy what you want is a > wait-free algorithm. > > MfG > Goswin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
