Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6232073
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 24, 20262026-05-24T10:03:11+00:00 2026-05-24T10:03:11+00:00

I have a shared memory pool from which many different threads may request an

  • 0

I have a shared memory pool from which many different threads may request an allocation. Requesting an allocation from this will occur a LOT in every thread, however the amount of threads is likely to be small, often with only 1 thread running. I am not sure which of the following ways to handle this are better.

Ultimately I may need to implement both and see which produces more favorable results… I also fear that even thinking of #2 may be premature optimization at this point as I don’t actually have the code that uses this shared resource written yet. But the problem is so darn interesting that it continues to distract me from the other work.

1) Create a mutex and have a thread attempt to lock it before obtaining the allocation, then unlocking it.

2) Have each thread register a request slot, when it needs an allocation it puts the request in the slot, then blocks(while (result == NULL) { usleep() }) waiting for the request slot to have a result. A single thread continuously iterates request slots making the allocations and assigning them to the result in the request slot.

Number 1 is the simple solution, but a single thread could potentially hog the lock if the timing is right. The second is more complex, but ensures fairness among threads when pulling from the resource. However it still blocks the requesting threads, and if there are many threads the iteration could burn cycles without doing any actual allocations until it finds a request to fulfill.

NOTE: C on Linux using pthreads

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-24T10:03:12+00:00Added an answer on May 24, 2026 at 10:03 am

    Solution 2 is bogus. It’s an ugly hack and it does not ensure memory synchronization.

    I would say go with solution 1, but I’m a little bit skeptical of the fact that you mentioned “memory pool” to begin with. Are you just trying to allocate memory, or is there some other resource you’re managing (e.g. slots in some special kind of memory, memory-mapped file, textures in video memory, etc.)?

    If you are just allocating memory, then you’re completely right to be worried about premature optimization. The whole problem is premature optimization, and the system malloc will do as well as or better than your memory pool will do. (Or if your code will be running on one of the few systems with a pathologically broken malloc like some video game consoles, just drop in a replacement only on those known-broken systems.)

    If you really do have a special resource you need to manage, start with solution 1 and see how it works. If you have problems, you might find you can improve it with a condition variable where the resource manager notifies you when a slot can be allocated, but I really doubt this will be necessary.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Is it OK/possible to have a shared memory in a COM object which will
I have two process and a shared memory zone, my workflow is like this.
I have a 'server' program that updates many linked lists in shared memory in
I have a chunk of shared memory containing some data. Reading / writing this
I have a class which opens a posix shared memory using shm_open . Now
I have some code which waits for write operation on Shared Memory. If no
Can I use shared memory on Windows in order to have a common memory
Does Windows have the notion of system-wide shared memory segments and is there a
I would like to have a manager process sharing graphs via shared memory, read-only
Two Windows processes have memory mapped the same shared file. If the file consists

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.