[no-bugs]

> make a more efficient queue by using one-buffer-and-lock-per-thread.

How the reader would block on such a distributed queue when it's empty (without creating one single mutex, which would re-establish the single contention point)? If there is no way to block while waiting for input, it means polling, and polling is a Really Bad Thing...

[Koromix]

The reader scans all queues, without locking. If one is non-empty, then you lock it and pop an item. Only if are all queues are empty then you hit the slow path and wait on a synchronization primitive (condition variable).

Of course if you can assume that the queue will always be very busy, you can ditch that too and poll instead. Polling is often bad, but not always. When things go very fast, it can be more efficient.

A good example of that occurs with the new storage NVM Express storage technologies and Linux, where the traditional I/O completion interrupt used until now is starting to bottleneck: https://lwn.net/Articles/663879/

[gpderetta]

Each queue has its own mutex (or better, use N lock free queues), but they would all share a single signaling object. As signaling is the slow path and it is rare, it is fine to contend in that case. You can't use a condition variable directly, but can build an event signaling object on top of a condvar and (another) mutex.