Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Round Robin Queue Servicing #24

Closed

Conversation

SeverTopan
Copy link

Just a solution for #19. Servicing tasks in a round-robin fashion allows all workers to service all thread queues, but they prioritize their own. This protects us from the situation described in #19 without a significant performance impact.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 29, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #24 into master will increase coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #24      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage    94.2%   94.52%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         138      146       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits          130      138       +8     
  Misses          8        8
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
include/thread_pool/worker.hpp 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
include/thread_pool/thread_pool_options.hpp 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
include/thread_pool/thread_pool.hpp 95% <100%> (-0.24%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update af95dd8...3fb0298. Read the comment docs.

yvoinov added a commit to yvoinov/thread-pool-cpp that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2018
Changes from inkooboo#24 are incorporated. Conditional variables instead spin-lock are kept as well.
@inkooboo inkooboo closed this May 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants