bounded-spsc-queue

It's just amortizing for large transfers. For frequent near-empty cases it still has the shared pointers problem. NVMe have a really clever way to avoid this, but it depends on the fact that there's [occasional] communication on the reverse stream (the SQ/CQ pair): The cache line sized entries in the submit queue has a "phase" bit in the last word. The reader can just read that to know when the entry has updated (the polarity of the bit toggles each time we loop around and you can just use the top+1 index bit if power-of-two sized). The back pressure is handled with a credit scheme and the producer gets an updated copy of most recently-know consumer read counter with every completion message back. Using this scheme you can achieve the optimal performance with just a single cache line of traffic for each cache-line sized message. Unfort

> I don't really need to benchmark to see which one is faster. I know that iterating an Array is radically faster than iterated a LinkedList. But I also know this because I’ve seen the difference first hand. Countless times over the years in fact. I even have a bit of a gut feeling for how much slower it can be. This case I don’t have the same level of experience. I’m sitting in an airport on my tablet right now. So I can’t throw any quick benchmarks together. Suffice to say I very much would like to see an actual for reals comparison. Because I haven’t dealt with this before and even if I’m convinced one way is faster seeing is believing! Performance benchmarks are almost always surprising. Edit: from Reddit here is a different spsc-ringbuffer that may be more to your liking! https://github.com/polyfractal/bounded-spsc-queue