Related
Anecdotally, I've found that a lot of programmers mistakenly believe that "lock-free" simply means "concurrent programming without mutexes". Usually, there's also a correlated misunderstanding that the purpose of writing lock-free code is for better concurrent performance. Of course, the correct definition of lock-free is actually about progress guarantees. A lock-free algorithm guarantees that at least one thread is able to make forward progress regardless of what any other threads are doing.
This means a lock-free algorithm can never have code where one thread is depending on another thread in order to proceed. E.g., lock-free code can not have a situation where Thread A sets a flag, and then Thread B keeps looping while waiting for Thread A to unset the flag. Code like that is basically implementing a lock (or what I would call a mutex in disguise).
However, other cases are more subtle and there are some cases where I honestly can't really tell if an algorithm qualifies as lock-free or not, because the notion of "making progress" sometimes appears subjective to me.
One such case is in the (well-regarded, afaik) concurrency library, liblfds. I was studying the implementation of a multi-producer/multi-consumer bounded queue in liblfds - the implementation is very straightforward, but I cannot really tell if it should qualify as lock-free.
The relevant algorithm is in lfds711_queue_bmm_enqueue.c. Liblfds uses custom atomics and memory barriers, but the algorithm is simple enough for me to describe in a paragraph or so.
The queue itself is a bounded contiguous array (ringbuffer). There is a shared read_index and write_index. Each slot in the queue contains a field for user-data, and a sequence_number value, which is basically like an epoch counter. (This avoids ABA issues).
The PUSH algorithm is as follows:
Atomically LOAD the write_index
Attempt to reserve a slot in the queue at write_index % queue_size using a CompareAndSwap loop that attempts to set write_index to write_index + 1.
If the CompareAndSwap is successful, copy the user data into the
reserved slot.
Finally, update the sequence_index on the
slot by making it equal to write_index + 1.
The actual source code uses custom atomics and memory barriers, so for further clarity about this algorithm I've briefly translated it into (untested) standard C++ atomics for better readability, as follows:
bool mcmp_queue::enqueue(void* data)
{
int write_index = m_write_index.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
for (;;)
{
slot& s = m_slots[write_index % m_num_slots];
int sequence_number = s.sequence_number.load(std::memory_order_acquire);
int difference = sequence_number - write_index;
if (difference == 0)
{
if (m_write_index.compare_exchange_weak(
write_index,
write_index + 1,
std::memory_order_acq_rel
))
{
break;
}
}
if (difference < 0) return false; // queue is full
}
// Copy user-data and update sequence number
//
s.user_data = data;
s.sequence_number.store(write_index + 1, std::memory_order_release);
return true;
}
Now, a thread that wants to POP an element from the slot at read_index will not be able to do so until it observes that the slot's sequence_number is equal to read_index + 1.
Okay, so there are no mutexes here, and the algorithm likely performs well (it's only a single CAS for PUSH and POP), but is this lock-free? The reason it's unclear to me is because the definition of "making progress" seems murky when there is the possibility that a PUSH or POP can always just fail if the queue is observed to be full or empty.
But what's questionable to me is that the PUSH algorithm essentially reserves a slot, meaning that the slot can never be POP'd until the push thread gets around to updating the sequence number. This means that a POP thread that wants to pop a value depends on the PUSH thread having completed the operation. Otherwise, the POP thread will always return false because it thinks the queue is EMPTY. It seems debatable to me whether this actually falls within the definition of "making progress".
Generally, truly lock-free algorithms involve a phase where a pre-empted thread actually tries to ASSIST the other thread in completing an operation. So, in order to be truly lock-free, I would think that a POP thread that observes an in-progress PUSH would actually need to try and complete the PUSH, and then only after that, perform the original POP operation. If the POP thread simply returns that the queue is EMPTY when a PUSH is in progress, the POP thread is basically blocked until the PUSH thread completes the operation. If the PUSH thread dies, or goes to sleep for 1,000 years, or otherwise gets scheduled into oblivion, the POP thread can do nothing except continuously report that the queue is EMPTY.
So does this fit the defintion of lock-free? From one perspective, you can argue that the POP thread can always make progress, because it can always report that the queue is EMPTY (which is at least some form of progress I guess.) But to me, this isn't really making progress, since the only reason the queue is observed as empty is because we are blocked by a concurrent PUSH operation.
So, my question is: is this algorithm truly lock-free? Or is the index reservation system basically a mutex in disguise?
This queue data structure is not strictly lock-free by what I consider the most reasonable definition. That definition is something like:
A structure is lock-free if only if any thread can be indefinitely
suspended at any point while still leaving the structure usable by the
remaining threads.
Of course this implies a suitable definition of usable, but for most structures this is fairly simple: the structure should continue to obey its contracts and allow elements to be inserted and removed as expected.
In this case a thread that has succeeded in incrementing m_write_increment, but hasn't yet written s.sequence_number leaves the container in what will soon be an unusable state. If such a thread is killed, the container will eventually report both "full" and "empty" to push and pop respectively, violating the contract of a fixed size queue.
There is a hidden mutex here (the combination of m_write_index and the associated s.sequence_number) - but it basically works like a per-element mutex. So the failure only becomes apparent to writers once you've looped around and a new writer tries to get the mutex, but in fact all subsequent writers have effectively failed to insert their element into the queue since no reader will ever see it.
Now this doesn't mean this is a bad implementation of a concurrent queue. For some uses it may behave mostly as if it was lock free. For example, this structure may have most of the useful performance properties of a truly lock-free structure, but at the same time it lacks some of the useful correctness properties. Basically the term lock-free usually implies a whole bunch of properties, only a subset of which will usually be important for any particular use. Let's look at them one by one and see how this structure does. We'll broadly categorize them into performance and functional categories.
Performance
Uncontended Performance
The uncontended or "best case" performance is important for many structures. While you need a concurrent structure for correctness, you'll usually still try to design your application so that contention is kept to a minimum, so the uncontended cost is often important. Some lock-free structures help here, by reducing the number of expensive atomic operations in the uncontended fast-path, or avoiding a syscall.
This queue implementation does a reasonable job here: there is only a single "definitely expensive" operation: the compare_exchange_weak, and a couple of possibly expensive operations (the memory_order_acquire load and memory_order_release store)1, and little other overhead.
This compares to something like std::mutex which would imply something like one atomic operation for lock and another for unlock, and in practice on Linux the pthread calls have non-negligible overhead as well.
So I expect this queue to perform reasonably well in the uncontended fast-path.
Contended Performance
One advantage of lock-free structures is that they often allow better scaling when a structure is heavily contended. This isn't necessarily an inherent advantage: some lock-based structures with multiple locks or read-write locks may exhibit scaling that matches or exceeds some lock-free approaches, but it is usually that case that lock-free structures exhibit better scaling that a simple one-lock-to-rule-them-all alternative.
This queue performs reasonably in this respect. The m_write_index variable is atomically updated by all readers and will be a point of contention, but the behavior should be reasonable as long as the underlying hardware CAS implementation is reasonable.
Note that a queue is generally a fairly poor concurrent structure since inserts and removals all happen at the same places (the head and the tail), so contention is inherent in the definition of the structure. Compare this to a concurrent map, where different elements have no particular ordered relationship: such a structure can offer efficient contention-free simultaneous mutation if different elements are being accessed.
Context-switch Immunity
One performance advantage of lock-free structures that is related to the core definition above (and also to the functional guarantees) is that a context switch of a thread which is mutating the structure doesn't delay all the other mutators. In a heavily loaded system (especially when runnable threads >> available cores), a thread may be switched out for hundreds of milliseconds or seconds. During this time, any concurrent mutators will block and incur additional scheduling costs (or they will spin which may also produce poor behavior). Even though such "unluckly scheduling" may be rare, when it does occur the entire system may incur a serious latency spike.
Lock-free structures avoid this since there is no "critical region" where a thread can be context switched out and subsequently block forward progress by other threads.
This structure offers partial protection in this area — the specifics of which depend on the queue size and application behavior. Even if a thread is switched out in the critical region between the m_write_index update and the sequence number write, other threads can continue to push elements to the queue as long as they don't wrap all the way around to the in-progress element from the stalled thread. Threads can also pop elements, but only up to the in-progress element.
While the push behavior may not be a problem for high-capacity queues, the pop behavior can be a problem: if the queue has a high throughput compared to the average time a thread is context switched out, and the average fullness, the queue will quickly appear empty to all consumer threads, even if there are many elements added beyond the in-progress element. This isn't affected by the queue capacity, but simply the application behavior. It means that the consumer side may completely stall when this occurs. In this respect, the queue doesn't look very lock-free at all!
Functional Aspects
Async Thread Termination
On advantage of lock-free structures it they are safe for use by threads that may be asynchronously canceled or may otherwise terminate exceptionally in the critical region. Cancelling a thread at any point leaves the structure is a consistent state.
This is not the case for this queue, as described above.
Queue Access from Interrupt or Signal
A related advantage is that lock-free structures can usually be examined or mutated from an interrupt or signal. This is useful in many cases where an interrupt or signal shares a structure with regular process threads.
This queue mostly supports this use case. Even if the signal or interrupt occurs when another thread is in the critical region, the asynchronous code can still push an element onto the queue (which will only be seen later by consuming threads) and can still pop an element off of the queue.
The behavior isn't as complete as a true lock-free structure: imagine a signal handler with a way to tell the remaining application threads (other than the interrupted one) to quiesce and which then drains all the remaining elements of the queue. With a true lock-free structure, this would allow the signal handler to full drain all the elements, but this queue might fail to do that in the case a thread was interrupted or switched out in the critical region.
1 In particular, on x86, this will only use an atomic operation for the CAS as the memory model is strong enough to avoid the need for atomics or fencing for the other operations. Recent ARM can do acquire and release fairly efficiently as well.
I am the author of liblfds.
The OP is correct in his description of this queue.
It is the single data structure in the library which is not lock-free.
This is described in the documentation for the queue;
http://www.liblfds.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=r7.1.1:Queue_%28bounded,_many_producer,_many_consumer%29#Lock-free_Specific_Behaviour
"It must be understood though that this is not actually a lock-free data structure."
This queue is an implementation of an idea from Dmitry Vyukov (1024cores.net) and I only realised it was not lock-free while I was making the test code work.
By then it was working, so I included it.
I do have some thought to remove it, since it is not lock-free.
Most of the time people use lock-free when they really mean lockless. lockless means a data-structure or algorithm that does not use locks, but there is no guarantee for forward progress. Also check this question. So the queue in liblfds is lockless, but as BeeOnRope mentioned is not lock-free.
A thread that calls POP before the next update in sequence is complete is NOT "effectively blocked" if the POP call returns FALSE immediately. The thread can go off and do something else. I'd say that this queue qualifies as lock-free.
However, I wouldn't say that it qualifies as a "queue" -- at least not the kind of queue that you could publish as a queue in a library or something -- because it doesn't guarantee a lot of the behaviors that you can normally expect from a queue. In particular, you can PUSH and element and then try and FAIL to POP it, because some other thread is busy pushing an earlier item.
Even so, this queue could still be useful in some lock-free solutions for various problems.
For many applications, however, I would worry about the possibility for consumer threads to be starved while a producer thread is pre-empted. Maybe liblfds does something about that?
"Lock-free" is a property of the algorithm, which implements some functionality. The property doesn't correlate with a way, how given functionality is used by a program.
When talk about mcmp_queue::enqueue function, which returns FALSE if underlying queue is full, its implementation (given in the question post) is lock-free.
However, implementing mcmp_queue::dequeue in lock-free manner would be difficult. E.g., this pattern is obviously not-lock free, as it spins on the variable changed by other thread:
while(s.sequence_number.load(std::memory_order_acquire) == read_index);
data = s.user_data;
...
return data;
I did formal verification on this same code using Spin a couple years ago for a course in concurrency testing and it is definitely not lock-free.
Just because there is no explicit "locking", doesn't mean it's lock-free. When it comes to reasoning about progress conditions, think of it from an individual thread's perspective:
Blocking/locking: if another thread gets descheduled and this can block my progress, then it is blocking.
Lock-free/non-blocking: if I am able to eventually make progress in the absence of contention from other threads, then it is at most lock-free.
If no other thread can block my progress indefinitely, then it is wait-free.
I have a question regarding threads. It is known that basically when we call for mutex(lock) that means that thread keeps on executing the part of code uninterrupted by other threads until it meets mutex(unlock). (At least that's what they say in the book) So my question is if it is actually possible to have several scoped WriteLocks which do not interfere with each other. For example something like this:
If I have a buffer with N elements without any new elements coming, however with high frequency updates (like change value of Kth element) is it possible to set a different lock on each element so that the only time threads would stall and wait is if actually 2 or more threads are trying to update the same element?
To answer your question about N mutexes: yes, that is indeed possible. What resources are protected by a mutex depends entirely on you as the user of that mutex.
This leads to the first (statement) part of your question. A mutex by itself does not guarantee that a thread will work uninterrupted. All it guarantees is MUTual EXclusion - if thread B attempts to lock a mutex which thread A has locked, thread B will block (execute no code) until thread A unlocks the mutex.
This means mutexes can be used to guarantee that a thread executes a block of code uninterrupted; but this works only if all threads follow the same mutex-locking protocol around that block of code. Which means it is your responsibility to assign semantics (or meaning) to each individual mutex, and correctly adhere to those semantics in your code.
If you decide for the semantics to be "I have an array a of N data elements and an array m of N mutexes, and accessing a[i] can only be done when m[i] is locked," then that's how it will work.
The need to consistently stick to the same protocol is why you should generally encapsulate the mutex and the code/data protected by it in a class in some way or another, so that outside code doesn't need to know the details of the protocol. It just knows "call this member function, and the synchronisation will happen automagically." This "automagic" will be the class correcrtly implementing the protocol.
A crucial consideration when deciding between a mutex per array and a mutex per element is whether there are operations - like tracking the number of "in-use" array elements, the "active" element, or moving a pointer-to-array to a larger buffer - that can only be done safely by one thread while all the others are blocked.
A lesser but sometimes important consideration is the amount of extra memory more mutexes use.
If you genuinely need to do this kind of update as quickly as possible in a highly contested multi-threaded program, you may also want to learn about lock-free atomic types and their compare-and-swap / exchange operations, but I'd recommend against considering that unless profiling the existing locking is significant in your overall program performance.
A mutex does not stop other threads from running completely, it only stops other threads from locking the same mutex. I.e. while one thread is keeping the mutex locked, the operating system continues to do context switches letting other threads run also, but if any other thread is trying to lock the same mutex its execution will be halted until the mutex is unlocked.
So yes, you can indeed have several different mutexes and lock/unlock them independently. Just beware of deadlocks, i.e. if one thread can lock more than one mutex at a time you can run into a situation where thread 1 has locked mutex A and is trying to lock mutex B but blocks because thread 2 already has mutex B locked and it is trying to lock mutex A..
Its not completely clear that your use case is:
the threads gets a buffer assigned on that they have to work
the threads have some results and request a special buffer to update.
On the first variant you need some assignment logic that assigns a buffer to a thread.
This logic has to be exectued in an atomic way. so the best is to use a mutex to protect the assignment logic.
On the other variant it may be the best to have a vector of mutexes, one for each buffer element.
In Both cases the buffer does not need a protection because it (or better each field of it) is only accessed from one thread at a time.
You also may inform yourself about 'semaphores'. These contain a counter that allows to manage ressources that have a limited amount but more than one. Mutexes are a special case of semaphores with n=1.
You can have mutex per entry, C++11 mutex can be easily converted into an adaptive-spinlock, so you can achieve good CPU/Latency tradeoff.
Or, if you need very low latency yet have enough CPUs you can use an atomic "busy" flag per entry and spin in a tight compare-exchange loop on contention.
From experience, though, the best performance and scalability are achieved when concurrent writes are serialized via a command queue (or a queue of smaller immutable buffers to be concatenated at destination) and a single thread processing the queue.
I have a for loop that I would like to make parallel, however the threads must share an unordered_map and a vector.
Because the for loop is somewhat big I will post here a concise overview of it so that I can make my main problem clear. Please read the comments.
unordered_map<string, vector<int>> sharedUM;
/*
here I call a function that updates the unordered_map with some
initial data, however the unordered_map will need to be updated by
the threads inside the for loop
*/
vector<int> sharedVector;
/*
the shared vector initially is empty, the threads will
fill it with integers, the order of these integers should be in ascending
order, however I can simply sort the array after all the
threads finish executing so I guess we can assume that the order
does not matter
*/
#pragma omp parallel for
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
key = generate_a_key_value_according_to_an_algorithm();
std::unordered_map<string, vector<int>::iterator it = sharedUM.find(key);
/*
according to the data inside it->second(the value),
the thread makes some conclusions which then
uses in order to figure out whether
it should run a high complexity algorithm
or not.
*/
bool conclusion = make_conclusion();
if(conclusion == true){
results = run_expensive_algorithm();
/*
According to the results,
the thread updates some values of
the key that it previously searched for inside the unordered_map
this update may help other threads avoid running
the expensive algorithm
*/
}
sharedVector.push_back(i);
}
Initially I left the code as it is, so I just used that #pragma over the for loop, however I got a few problems regarding the update of the sharedVector. So I decided to use simple locks in order to force a thread acquire the lock before writing to the vector. So in my implementation I had something like this:
omp_lock_t sharedVectorLock;
omp_init_lock(&sharedVectorLock);
...
for(...)
...
omp_set_lock(&sharedVectorLock);
sharedVector.push_back(i);
omp_unset_lock(&sharedVectorLock);
...
omp_destroy_lock(&sharedVectorLock);
I had run my application many times and everything seemed to be working great, and that's until I decided to rerun it automatically too many times until I got wrong results. Because I'm very new to the world of OpenMP and the threads in general, I wasn't aware of the fact that we should lock all the readers when a writer is updating some shared data. As you can see here in my application the threads always read some data from the unordered_map in order make some conclusions and learn things about the key that was assigned to them. What happens though if two threads have to work with the same key, and while some other thread is trying to read the values of this key, another one has reached the point of updating those values? I believe that's where my problem occurs.
However my main problem right now is that I'm not sure what would be the best way to avoid such things from happening. It's like my system works for 99% of the time, but that 1% ruins everything because two threads are rarely assigned with the same key which in turn is because my unordered_map is usually big.
Would locking the unordered_map do my job? Most likely, but that wouldn't be efficient because a thread A that wants to work with the key x would have to wait for a thread B that is already working with the key y where y can be different than x to finish.
So my main question is, how should I approach this problem? How can I lock the unordered_map if and only if two threads are working with the same key?
Thank you in advance
1 on using locks and mutexes. You must declare and initialise the lock variables outside of the parallel block (before #pragma omp parallel) and then use them inside the parallel block: (1) acquire a lock (this may block if another thread has locked it), (2) change the variable with the race condition, (3) release the lock. Finally, destroy it after exiting the parallel block. A lock declared inside the parallel block is local to the thread and hence cannot provide synchronisation.
This may explain your problems.
2 on writing into complicated C++ containers. OpenMP was designed originally for simple FORTRAN do loops (similar to C/C++ for loops with integer control variables). Everything more complicated will give you headache. To be on the safe side, any non-constant operation on a C++ container must be performed within a lock (use the same lock for any such operation on the same container) or omp critical region (use the same name for any such operation on the same container). This includes pop() and push() etc, anything but simple reads. This can only remain efficient if such non-constant container operations take only a tiny fraction of the time.
3 If I were you, I wouldn't bother with openMP (I have used it but am regretting this now). With C++ you could use TBB, which also comes with some threadsafe but lock-free containers. It also allows you to think in terms of tasks, not threads, which are executed recursively (a parent task spawns child tasks, etc), but TBB has some simple implementations for parallel for loops, for instance.
An alternative approach would be to use TBB's concurrent_unordered_map.
You don't have to use the rest of TBB's parallelism support (though if you're starting from scratch in C++ it's certainly more "c++-ish" than OpenMP).
May be this could help:
vector<bool> sv(N);
replace
sharedVector.push_back(i);
by
sv[i]=true;
this allows to avoid locks (very time consuming) and sharedVector
can easily be sorted, e.g
for(int i=0; i<N;i++){
if(sv[i])sharedVector.push_back(i);
}
I have a queue with elements which needs to be processed. I want to process these elements in parallel. The will be some sections on each element which need to be synchronized. At any point in time there can be max num_threads running threads.
I'll provide a template to give you an idea of what I want to achieve.
queue q
process_element(e)
{
lock()
some synchronized area
// a matrix access performed here so a spin lock would do
unlock()
...
unsynchronized area
...
if( condition )
{
new_element = generate_new_element()
q.push(new_element) // synchonized access to queue
}
}
process_queue()
{
while( elements in q ) // algorithm is finished condition
{
e = get_elem_from_queue(q) // synchronized access to queue
process_element(e)
}
}
I can use
pthreads
openmp
intel thread building blocks
Top problems I have
Make sure that at any point in time I have max num_threads running threads
Lightweight synchronization methods to use on queue
My plan is to the intel tbb concurrent_queue for the queue container. But then, will I be able to use pthreads functions ( mutexes, conditions )? Let's assume this works ( it should ). Then, how can I use pthreads to have max num_threads at one point in time? I was thinking to create the threads once, and then, after one element is processes, to access the queue and get the next element. However it if more complicated because I have no guarantee that if there is not element in queue the algorithm is finished.
My question
Before I start implementing I'd like to know if there is an easy way to use intel tbb or pthreads to obtain the behaviour I want? More precisely processing elements from a queue in parallel
Note: I have tried to use tasks but with no success.
First off, pthreads gives you portability which is hard to walk away from. The following appear to be true from your question - let us know if these aren't true because the answer will then change:
1) You have a multi-core processor(s) on which you're running the code
2) You want to have no more than num_threads threads because of (1)
Assuming the above to be true, the following approach might work well for you:
Create num_threads pthreads using pthread_create
Optionally, bind each thread to a different core
q.push(new_element) atomically adds new_element to a queue. pthreads_mutex_lock and pthreads_mutex_unlock can help you here. Examples here: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~travitch/pthreads_primer.html
Use pthreads_mutexes for dequeueing elements
Termination is tricky - one way to do this is to add a TERMINATE element to the queue, which upon dequeueing, causes the dequeuer to queue up another TERMINATE element (for the next dequeuer) and then terminate. You will end up with one extra TERMINATE element in the queue, which you can remove by having a named thread dequeue it after all the threads are done.
Depending on how often you add/remove elements from the queue, you may want to use something lighter weight than pthread_mutex_... to enqueue/dequeue elements. This is where you might want to use a more machine-specific construct.
TBB is compatible with other threading packages.
TBB also emphasizes scalability. So when you port over your program to from a dual core to a quad core you do not have to adjust your program. With data parallel programming, program performance increases (scales) as you add processors.
Cilk Plus is also another runtime that provides good results.
www.cilkplus.org
Since pThreads is a low level theading library you have to decide how much control you need in your application because it does offer flexibility, but at a high cost in terms of programmer effort, debugging time, and maintenance costs.
My recommendation is to look at tbb::parallel_do. It was designed to process elements from a container in parallel, even if the container itself is not concurrent; i.e. parallel_do works with an std::queue correctly without any user synchronization (of course you would still need to protect your matrix access inside process_element(). Moreover, with parallel_do you can add more work on the fly, which looks like what you need, as process_element() creates and adds new elements to the work queue (the only caution is that the newly added work will be processed immediately, unlike putting in a queue which would postpone processing till after all "older" items). Also, you don't have to worry about termination: parallel_do will complete automatically as soon as all initial queue items and new items created on the fly are processed.
However, if, besides the computation itself, the work queue can be concurrently fed from another source (e.g. from an I/O processing thread), then parallel_do is not suitable. In this case, it might make sense to look at parallel_pipeline or, better, the TBB flow graph.
Lastly, an application can control the number of active threads with TBB, though it's not a recommended approach.
in my code I have 2/4 threads performing montecarlo simulations. Each of them runs a number of experiments and they all collect the results into a stl vector.
My question is this: suppose each thread runs 1000 experiments sequentially. Is is better to store the result into the shared vector one at the time, or every once in a while? If they wait until they have some consistent amount of data, writing into the vector will take longer, so I'm not sure whether the second solution is necessarily better than the first one.
PS each experiment is numerical computation, so no IO operations.
Thanks
If you are going to wait until all the results are computed before you use any of the results, preallocate space for 4,000 results in the vector and have each thread write into one range of elements in the vector. No locking is required because no two threads access the same element in the vector.
If you want to use the results as they are computed, use some sort of a concurrent queue data structure instead of a vector.
If you're only putting 2000 to 4000 elements in the vector I doubt it would make much of a difference either way.
Do whatever is most natural for the algorithm. If that doesn't work well enough look into doing it the other way.
After thinking about it for a bit, it might serve both purposes (simplicity and speed) to have each thread store results to a local vector then copy the contents of the local vector to the 'global' vector (protected by a lock) when the thread is done. Of course, that's as long as whatever's waiting for the results can wait until a thread is fully finished before getting an update.
a singly linked list may be a better choice than vector here.
If there is only one thread reading and one thread writing to a fifo .. you don't need any synchronization . The trick is to keep at least one 'dummy' element always in the list, and fifo is empty if head == tail . The head and tail pointers can be manipulated for push and pop, such that there is no need for synchronization..
Using this .. you can make several Q's .. which will not need any synchronization
If new/delete is taking time .. you can have Q's to hold reusable elements.
best of luck .
remember .. Exactly one reader, and Exactly one writer .. no more, no less .
the trick is createa LOT of Q's like this , Q to recycle objects also .. and
you'll not need any thread synchronization stuff ...
If your Q's do run empty .. just a sleep() / wakeup() functionality is needed.
and in case i haven't already said .. Exactly one reader, and Exactly one writer.