Ticket #7783: fix_comment_typo.patch
| File fix_comment_typo.patch, 1.3 KB (added by , 10 years ago) |
|---|
-
libs/lockfree/doc/lockfree.qbk
75 75 76 76 When discussing the performance of non-blocking data structures, one has to distinguish between *amortized* and 77 77 *worst-case* costs. The definition of 'lock-free' and 'wait-free' only mention the upper bound of an operation. Therefore 78 lock-free data structures are not neces arily the best choice for every use case. In order to maximise the throughput of an78 lock-free data structures are not necessarily the best choice for every use case. In order to maximise the throughput of an 79 79 application one should consider high-performance concurrent data structures [footnote 80 80 [@http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/ Intel's Thread Building Blocks library] provides many efficient concurrent data structures, 81 81 which are not necessarily lock-free.]. … … 161 161 162 162 [h2 Queue] 163 163 164 The [classref boost::lockfree::queue boost::lockfree::queue] class implements a multi-writer/multi-reader queue queue. The164 The [classref boost::lockfree::queue boost::lockfree::queue] class implements a multi-writer/multi-reader queue. The 165 165 following example shows how integer values are produced and consumed by 4 threads each: 166 166 167 167 [import ../examples/queue.cpp]
