Document number: P0561R2
Date: 2017-10-11
Reply to:
Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>
Audience: Concurrency Study Group, Library Evolution Working Group
For purposes of this paper, deferred reclamation refers to a pattern of concurrent data sharing with two components: readers access the data while holding reader locks, which guarantee that the data will remain live while the lock is held. Meanwhile one or more updaters update the data by replacing it with a newly-allocated value. All subsequent readers will see the new value, but the old value is not destroyed until all readers accessing it have released their locks. Readers never block the updater or other readers, and the updater never blocks readers. Updates are inherently costly, because they require allocating and constructing new data values, so they are expected to be rare compared to reads.
This pattern can be implemented in several ways, including reference counting, RCU, and hazard pointers. Several of these have been proposed for standardization (see e.g. P0233R3, P0279R1, and P0461R1), but the proposals have so far exposed these techniques through fairly low-level APIs.
In this paper, we will propose a high-level RAII API for deferred reclamation, which emphasizes safety and usability rather than fidelity to low-level primitives, but still permits highly efficient implementation. This proposal is based on an API which is used internally at Google, and our experience with it demonstrates the value of providing a high-level API: in our codebase we provide both a high-level API like the one proposed here, and a more bare-metal RCU API comparable to P0461, and while the high-level API has over 200 users, the low-level API has one.
This proposal is intended to complement, rather than conflict with, proposals for low-level APIs for RCU, hazard pointers, etc, and it can be standardized independently of whether and when we standardize those other proposals.
We begin with a simple example of how this API can be used: a
Server
class which handles requests using some config data,
and can receive new versions of that config data (e.g. from a thread which
polls the filesystem). Each request is handled using the latest config data
available when the request is handled (i.e. updates do not affect
requests already in flight). No synchronization is required between
any of these operations.
class Server { public: void SetConfig(Config new_config) { config_.update(std::make_unique<const Config>(std::move(new_config))); } void HandleRequest() { snapshot_ptr<const Config> config = config_.get_snapshot(); // Use `config` like a unique_ptr<const Config> } private: cell<Config> config_; };
The centerpiece of this proposal is the cell<T>
template, a wrapper which is either empty or holds a single object
of type T
(the name is intended to suggest a storage cell, but
we expect it to be bikeshedded). Rather than providing direct access to the
stored object, it allows the user to obtain a snapshot of the
current state of the object:
template <typename T, typename Alloc = allocator<T>> class basic_cell { public: // Not copyable or movable basic_cell(basic_cell&&) = delete; basic_cell& operator=(basic_cell&&) = delete; basic_cell(const basic_cell&) = delete; basic_cell& operator=(const basic_cell&) = delete; basic_cell(nullptr_t = nullptr, const Alloc& alloc = Alloc()); basic_cell(std::unique_ptr<T> ptr, const Alloc& alloc = Alloc()); void update(nullptr_t); void update(unique_ptr<T> ptr); bool try_update(const snapshot_ptr<T>& expected, std::unique_ptr<T>&& desired); snapshot_ptr<T> get_snapshot() const; }; template <typename T> using cell = basic_cell<see below>; template <typename T> class snapshot_ptr { public: // Move only snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr&&) noexcept; snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr&&) noexcept; snapshot_ptr(const snapshot_ptr&) = delete; snapshot_ptr& operator=(const snapshot_ptr&) = delete; snapshot_ptr(nullptr_t = nullptr); // Converting operations, enabled if U* is convertible to T* template <typename U> snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr<U>&& rhs) noexcept; template <typename U> snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr<U>&& rhs) noexcept; T* get() const noexcept; T& operator*() const; T* operator->() const noexcept; explicit operator bool() const noexcept; void swap(snapshot_ptr& other); }; template <typename T> void swap(snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <typename T> bool operator==(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); // Similar overloads for !=, <, >, <=, and >=, and mixed // comparison with nullptr_t. template <typename T> struct hash<snapshot_ptr<T>>;
As you can see, cell
is actually an alias template
that refers to basic_cell
; we intend most users to use
cell
most of the time, although basic_cell
is more fundamental. The problem with basic_cell
is that,
like so many other things in C++, it has the wrong default: a
basic_cell<std::string>
enables multiple threads to share
mutable access to a std::string
object, which is an
open invitation to data races. Users can make the shared data immutable, but
they have to opt into it by adding const
to the type. We could
add the const
in the library, but then users would have no way
to opt out if they geuninely do want to share mutable data (this is a
reasonable thing to want, if the data has a race-free type).
This library is intended for routine use by non-expert programmers,
so in our view safety must be the default, not something
users have to opt into. Consequently, we provide a fully general but
less safe API under the slightly more awkward name basic_cell
,
while reserving the name cell
for a safe-by-default
alias.
Specifically, cell<T>
is usually an alias for
basic_cell<const T>
, but if the trait
is_race_free_v<T>
is true, signifying that T
can be mutated concurrently without races, then cell<T>
will be an alias for basic_cell<T>
. Thus, cell
exposes the most powerful interface that can be provided safely, while
basic_cell
provides users an opt-out, such as for cases where
T
is not inherently race-free, but the user will ensure it
is used in a race-free manner. basic_cell
thus acts as a marker
of potentially unsafe code that warrants closer scrutiny, much like
e.g. const_cast
.
The major drawback we see in this approach is that it means that
constness is somewhat less predictable: if c
is a
cell<T>
, c.get_snapshot()
might return
a snapshot_ptr<T>
or a
snapshot_ptr<const T>
, depending on T
.
We don't expect this to be a serious problem, because const T
will be both the most common case by far, and the safe choice if the
user is uncertain (snapshot_ptr<T>
implicitly converts
to snapshot_ptr<const T>
). The problem can also be
largely avoided through judicious use of auto
.
Alternative approach: we could unconditionally define
cell<T>
as an alias for
basic_cell<const T>
. This would be substantially simpler,
but basic_cell
would not be able to act as a marker of
code that requires close scrutiny, since many if not most uses of it
(e.g. basic_cell<atomic<int>>
) would be safe
by construction. That said, any use of basic_cell<T>
would still warrant some scrutiny, since shared mutable data usually
carries a risk of race conditions, even if it is immune to data races.
Other than construction and destruction, all operations on
basic_cell
behave as atomic operations for purposes of
determining a data race. One noteworthy consequence of this is that
basic_cell
is not movable, because there are plausible extensions
of this design (e.g. to support user-supplied RCU domains) under which we
believe that move assignment cannot be made atomic without degrading the
performance of get_snapshot
.
cell
's destructor does not require all outstanding
snapshot_ptr
s to be destroyed first, nor wait for them
to be destroyed. This is motivated by the principle that concurrency
APIs should strive to avoid coupling between client threads that isn't
mediated by the API; concurrency APIs should solve thread coordination
problems, not create new ones. That said, destruction of the
cell
must already be coordinated with the threads that
actually read it, so also coordinating with the threads that hold
snapshot_ptr
s to it may not be much additional burden
(particularly since snapshot_ptr
s cannot be passed across
threads).
Some deferred reclamation libraries are built around the concept of
"domains", which can be used to isolate unrelated operations from each
other (for example with RCU, long-lived reader locks can delay all
reclamation within a domain, but do not affect other domains). This
proposal does not include explicit support for domains, so effectively
all users of this library would share a single global domain. So far
our experience has not shown this to be a problem. If necessary
domain support can be added, by adding the domain as a constructor
parameter of cell
(with a default value, so client code
can ignore domains if it chooses), but it is difficult to see how to
do so without exposing implementation details (e.g. RCU vs. hazard
pointers).
snapshot_ptr<T>
's API is closely modeled on
unique_ptr<T>
, and indeed it could almost be implemented
as an alias for unique_ptr
with a custom deleter, except that
we don't want to expose operations such as release()
or
get_deleter()
that could violate API invariants or leak
implementation details.
A snapshot_ptr
is either null, or points to a live object of
type T
, and it is only null if constructed from
nullptr
, moved-from, or is the result of invoking
get_snapshot()
on an empty basic_cell
(in
particular, a snapshot_ptr
cannot spontaneously become null due
to the actions of other threads). The guarantee that the object is live means
that calling get_snapshot()
is equivalent to acquiring a reader
lock, and destroying the resulting snapshot_ptr
is equivalent to
releasing the reader lock.
In a high-quality implementation, all operations on a
snapshot_ptr
are non-blocking.
We require the user to destroy a snapshot_ptr
in the same
thread where it was obtained, so that this library can be implemented in terms
of libraries that require reader lock acquire/release operations to
happen on the same thread. Note that unique_lock
implicitly
imposes the same requirement, so this is not an unprecedented restriction.
There are plausible use cases for transferring a snapshot_ptr
across threads, and some RCU implementations can support it efficiently,
but based on SG1 discussions we think it's safer to start with the
more restrictive API, and broaden it later as needed.
The const semantics of get_snapshot()
merit closer
scrutiny. The proposed API permits users who have only const access
to a basic_cell<T>
to obtain non-const access to
the underlying T
. This is similar to the "shallow const"
semantics of pointers, but unlike the "deep const" semantics of other
wrapper types such as optional
. In essence, the problem is
that this library naturally supports three distinct levels of access
(read-only, read-write, and read-write-update), but the const system can
only express two. Our intuition (which SG1 in Kona generally seemed to share)
is that the writer/updater distinction is more fundamental than the
reader/writer distinction, so const should capture the former rather than
the latter, but it's a close call.
We had considered providing snapshot_ptr
with an aliasing
constructor comparable to the one for shared_ptr
:
template <typename U> snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr<U>&& other, T* ptr);
This would enable the user, given a snapshot_ptr
to an
object, to construct a snapshot_ptr
to one of its members.
However, it would mean we could no longer guarantee that a
snapshot_ptr
is either null or points to a live object.
SG1's consensus in Kona was to omit this feature, and we agree:
we shouldn't give up that guarantee without a compelling use case.
Previous versions of this paper proposed that
snapshot_ptr<T>
rvalues be convertible to
shared_ptr<T>
, by analogy with
unique_ptr<T>
. However, this interface would
require the user to ensure that the last copy of the resulting
shared_ptr
is destroyed on the same thread where the
snapshot_ptr
was created. This would be difficult to
ensure in general, especially since the shared_ptr
s
carrying this requirement would be indistinguishable from any other
shared_ptr
. At the Toronto meeting, SG1 had no consensus
to provide this conversion, so we have removed it. Peter Dimov
points out that users who need to share ownership of a
snapshot_ptr
can do so fairly easily
without this conversion.
The update side is more complex. It consists of two parallel sets of
overloads, constructors and update()
, which respectively
initialize the cell
with a given value, and update the
cell
to store a given value. update()
does not necessarily wait for the old data value to be destroyed, although
it may wait for other update operations. In addition, we provide
a try_update()
operation, which functions as a
compare-and-swap, allowing us to support multiple unsynchronized
updaters even when the new value depends on the previous value.
The constructor and update()
overload taking
nullptr_t
respectively initialize and set the cell
to the empty state. The fact that a cell
can be empty is in
some ways unfortunate, since it's generally more difficult to reason about
types with an empty or null state, and users could always say
cell<optional<T>>
if they explicitly want
an empty state. However, given that snapshot_ptr
must have
a null state in order to be movable, eliminating the empty state would
not simplify user code much. Furthermore, forbidding the empty state
when we support initialization from a nullable type would actually
complicate the API.
The constructor and update()
overload that accept a
unique_ptr<T> ptr
take ownership of it, and respectively
initialize and set the current value of the cell to *ptr
.
try_update()
compares expected
with
the current value of the cell
(i.e. the value that
get_snapshot()
would currently produce). If they are equal,
it sets the current value of the cell to desired
(setting desired
to null in the process) and returns true.
Otherwise, it returns false and leaves desired
unmodified
(spurious failures are also permitted, to maximize implementation
flexibility). The execution of try_update()
is atomic in both
cases. Note that unlike other compare-and-swap operations,
try_update()
does not update expected
on failure,
because such an update could be costly and clients will not always need it.
Clients who do can simply call get_snapshot()
explicitly.
Internally, cell
must maintain some sort of data structure
to hold its previous values until it can destroy them, and sometimes
this will require allocating memory. In
revision 0 of this paper, we
discussed a possible mechanism by which the user could consolidate
those allocations with their own allocation of the T
data.
However, this would effectively couple the library to a particular
implementation, and greatly complicate the interface. Furthermore,
its value is questionable, because those allocations can be made rare and
small in normal usage (when snapshot_ptr
s are destroyed within
bounded time). In Kona, the SG1 consensus (which we agree with) was that
such a mechanism is not necessary.
It also bears mentioning that this library may need to impose
some restrictions on the allocators it supports. In particular,
it may need to require that the allocator's pointer
type is a raw pointer, or can safely be converted to one, since
the implementation layer is unlikely to be able to accept "fancy
pointers".
We have opted not to provide an emplacement-style constructor or
update
function, for several reasons. First of all,
it provides no additional functionality; it's syntactic sugar for
update(make_unique<T>(...))
that might on some
implementations be slightly more efficient (if it can consolidate
allocations a la make_shared
). Second, it would not be
fully general; sometimes users need to perform some sort of setup
in the interval between constructing the object and publishing it.
Finally, it conflicts with another possible feature, support for
custom deleters.
Currently, unique_ptr
s passed to this library must use
std::default_delete
, but it's natural to ask if we could
support other deleters. There are two ways we could go about that:
we could make the deleter a template parameter of cell
,
or of the individual methods. Parameterizing the individual methods
would be more flexible, but it would require some sort of type erasure,
which would risk bloating the cell
object (which can currently
be as small as sizeof(T*)
), and/or degrading
performance on the read path (which needs to be fast). Parameterizing
the whole class avoids type erasure, but precludes us from supporting
emplace-style operations, because there's no way for the library
to know how to allocate and construct an object so that it can be
cleaned up by an arbitrary deleter.
Given the uncertainties around both features, the conflict between them, and the lack of strong motivation to add them, we have opted to omit them both for the time being.
One noteworthy property of update()
is that there is
no explicit support for specifying in the update()
call
how the old value is cleaned up, which we are told is required in some
RCU use cases in the Linux kernel. It is possible for the user to
approximate support for custom cleanup by using a custom destructor
whose behavior is controlled via a side channel, but this
is a workaround, and an awkward one at that. We've opted not to
include this feature because use cases for it appear to be quite
rare (our internal version of this API lacks this feature, and
nobody has asked for it), and because it would substantially
complicate the API. It would add an extra update()
parameter which most users don't need, and which would break the
symmetry between constructors and update()
overloads.
More fundamentally, it would raise difficult questions about the
relationship between the user-supplied cleanup logic and the original
deleter: does the cleanup logic run instead of the deleter,
or before the deleter? Neither option seems very satisfactory.
In Toronto, the concern was raised that some clients may want to ensure
that all retired cell
values are reclaimed before the program
terminates (at least during "normal" termination). To support this,
we propose introducing a namespace-scope function
set_synchronize_cells_on_exit()
which, if called,
ensures that this will take place.
More precisely, calling this function ensures that when the program
terminates via exit()
(including by returning from
main()
), it will invoke a callback that reclaims all
retired cell
values. This callback is guaranteed to be
called as if by the destructor of a static object declared in the header
that defines cell
and snapshot_ptr
, which in
particular means that if users follow the common discipline of including
standard headers before any user-defined code, then the callback will be
executed after any user-defined static objects are destroyed. However,
exit()
must be called from the main thread, with no other
threads running, and any remaining snapshot_ptr
and
cell
objects must be null.
Those requirements may be difficult to comply with in general,
which is why this behavior requires an explicit opt-in, but they should
not be difficult for users who want this sort of "clean shutdown"
behavior in the first place: for the most part, it's sufficient to ensure
that all threads are joined before exit()
is called, and that
all objects with dynamic storage duration ultimately have owners that don't
have dynamic storage duration.
Note that we have no implementation or usage experience with automatically cleaning up at program termination, because the Google codebase generally does not support this form of clean shutdown.
We can imagine some use cases for enabling programmers to invoke the
cleanup callback manually (for example, between test cases in a unit
test). However, it will generally be very difficult to do so safely
in practice. For example, invoking it at the end of a unit test would
result in undefined behavior if any background threads (e.g. worker
threads spawned by libraries as hidden implementation details) are using
the cell
library. Consequently, we are not currently proposing
to expose it directly, but we are open to guidance from the committee on
that point.
This proposal is designed to permit implementation via RCU, hazard
pointers, or reference counting (or even garbage collection, we suppose).
It is also designed to permit implementations that perform reclamation
on background threads (which can enable update()
to be
nonblocking and lock-free regardless of T
), as well
as implementations that reclaim any eligible retired values during
update()
calls (which can ensure that update()
is truly wait-free if ~T()
is, and ensure a bound on the
number of unreclaimed values). These two techniques appear to
be mutually exclusive, and neither seems dramatically superior
to the other: this API is not intended for cases where
update()
is a performance bottleneck, and in practice the
number of retired but unreclaimed values should be tightly bounded
in normal use, even if it is theoretically unbounded. Consequently, we
propose to permit either implementation strategy, by not bounding the
number of live old values and permitting update()
to delete
unreclaimed old values.
We tentatively propose to also allow the implementation to perform
reclamation during ~snapshot_ptr
, because that's the most
natural choice for reference counting, but we're concerned that this risks
adding latency to the read path (e.g. if ~T
is slow or
blocking). The alternative would be to require reference-counting
implementations to defer reclamation to a subsequent update()
call or a separate thread, but that would probably be slower when
T
is trivially destructible. We are opting not to impose this
constraint because it will be easier to add later than to remove.
We do not intend to support the trivial implementation strategy of never performing any reclamation at all, but it is not yet clear if we will be able to disallow it without also disallowing other more reasonable implementation strategies. If we are not able to make this implementation nonconforming, we will non-normatively discourage it as strongly as possible.
This proposal cannot be implemented in terms of an RCU library that requires user code to periodically enter a "quiescent" state where no reader locks are held. We see no way to satisfy such a requirement in a general-purpose library, since it means that any use of the library, no matter how local, imposes constraints on the global structure of the threads that use it (even though the top-level thread code may otherwise be completely unaware of the library). This would be quite onerous to comply with, and likely a source of bugs. Neither Userspace RCU, Google's internal RCU implementation, nor P0233R2's hazard pointer API impose this requirement, so omitting it does not appear to be a major implementation burden.
This proposal also does not require user code to register and unregister
threads with the library, for more or less the same reasons: it
would cause local uses of the library to impose global constraints on
the program, creating an unacceptable usability and safety burden.
P0233R2
and Google's internal RCU do not impose this requirement, and
Userspace RCU provides a library that does not (although at some performance
cost). Furthermore, the standard library can satisfy this requirement if
need be, without exposing users to it, by performing the necessary
registration in std::thread
.
A previous version of this paper stated that we did not think this API could be implemented in terms of hazard pointers, but that was an error. We are aware of no obstacles to implementing this library in terms of hazard pointers. However, we expect RCU to be the preferred implementation strategy in practice, because it can provide superior performance on the read side.
Changes are relative to N4659. We have omitted details of section numbering, because we expect this to initially go into a TS.
Deferred reclamation [concur.cell]
Deferred reclamaion overview [concur.cell.overview]
This subclause describes components that a C++ program can use to manage the lifetime of data that is shared between threads. They can be used to keep objects alive while they are potentially being concurrently accessed, while ensuring those objects are destroyed once they are no longer accessible. [ Note: these components are not restricted to multi-threaded programs, but can be useful in single-threaded programs as well — end note]
A variety of implementation techniques are possible, including RCU, hazard pointers, and atomic reference counting.
Header
<cell>
synopsis [concur.cell.synop]namespace std { // ?.?,is_race_free
trait template <class T> class is_race_free; template <class T> inline constexpr bool is_race_free_v = is_race_free<T>::value; // ?.?, Class templatebasic_cell
template <class T, class Allocator = allocator<T>> class basic_cell; // ?.?, Alias templatecell
template <class T, class Allocator = allocator<T>> using cell = basic_cell<see below, Allocator>; // ?.?, Class templatesnapshot_ptr
template <class T> class snapshot_ptr; // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
specialized algorithms template <class T> void swap(snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator==(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator!=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator<(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator<=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator>(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T, class U> bool operator>=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator==(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator==(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator!=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator!=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator<(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator<(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator<=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator<=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator>(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator>(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator>=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator>=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> struct hash<snapshot_ptr<T>>; // ?.?, Termination cleanup void set_synchronize_cells_on_exit(); }
is_race_free
traittemplate <class T> class is_race_free;This template shall be a
UnaryTypeTrait
with a base characteristic oftrue_type
orfalse_type
.The base characteristic is
true_type
whenT
is a specialization ofatomic<T>
.The base characteristic is
false_type
whenT
is a user-defined type. This requirement does not apply to user-defined specializations ofis_race_free
.[Note: This trait is used to disable certain safety measures that prevent mutation of
T
objects that may be accessible to other threads. Consequently, it should have a base characteristic oftrue_type
only ifT
's contract permits mutations that are concurrent with other operations. — end note]Class template
basic_cell
[concur.basic_cell]An object of type
basic_cell<T, Allocator>
represents a pointer to an object of typeT
, and provides operations to access and update the currently stored pointer. Updates are expected to be rare relative to accesses. Abasic_cell
owns all pointers stored in it, but ensures that previous values are not reclaimed until they can no longer be accessed (hence the term "deferred reclamation").namespace std { template <class T, class Allocator = see below> class basic_cell { public: using element_type = T; // ?.?, constructors basic_cell(nullptr_t = nullptr, const Allocator& a = Allocator()); basic_cell(unique_ptr<T> ptr, const Allocator& a = Allocator()); // ?.?, destructor ~basic_cell(); // ?.?, update void update(nullptr_t); void update(unique_ptr<T> ptr); bool try_update(const snapshot_ptr<T>& expected, std::unique_ptr<T>&& desired); // ?.?, value access snapshot_ptr<T> get_snapshot() const; // Disable copy and move basic_cell(basic_cell&&) = delete; basic_cell& operator=(basic_cell&&) = delete; basic_cell(const basic_cell&) = delete; basic_cell& operator=(const basic_cell&) = delete; }; }A
basic_cell
's value consists of the pointer the user stored in it, but if two differentbasic_cell
operations store equal non-null pointers, the resulting values are considered to be distinct. [Note: In other words,basic_cell
values are considered to be the same only if they are both null, or were caused by the same update operation. — end note]. Furthermore, if one of these operations does not happen after the reclamation of the value resulting from the other, the behavior is undefined. [Note: Consequently, non-equal values representing equal pointers are never concurrently live — end note]For purposes of determining the existence of a data race, all member functions of
basic_cell
(other than construction and destruction) behave as atomic operations on the value of thebasic_cell
object.All modifications to the value of a
basic_cell
occur in a particular total order, called the modification order, which is consistent with the happens-before partial order.The default value of
Allocator
shall be a specialization ofstd::allocator
.Allocator
must satisfy the requirements of an allocator (20.5.3.5). For all typesU
,allocator_traits<Allocator>::rebind_traits<U>::pointer
must beU*
.
basic_cell<T>
reclaims previous non-null values by invokingdefault_delete<T>()
on them, but this reclamation is deferred until it can satisfy all the "synchronizes with" constraints specified in this subclause. When reclamation of a value would satisfy those constraints, the value is said to be eligible for reclamation.[Note: The implementation should ensure that all but a bounded number of values are reclaimed within a bounded amount of time after they are elgible for reclamation. — end note]
basic_cell
constructors [concur.basic_cell.ctor]basic_cell(nullptr_t = nullptr, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
- Effects: Equivalent to
basic_cell(unique_ptr<T>(), a)
.basic_cell(unique_ptr<T> ptr, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
- Effects: Initializes the
basic_cell
withptr.get()
as its initial value. Thebasic_cell
will use a copy ofa
to obtain memory, if necessary.
basic_cell
destructor [concur.basic_cell.dtor]~basic_cell()
- Effects: May reclaim the current value of
*this
if it is eligible for reclamation, but will not wait for it to become eligible.- Synchronization: If
*this
has a non-null value, the start of this operation synchronizes with the reclamation of the value.
basic_cell
update operations [concur.basic_cell.update]void update(nullptr_t);
- Effects: equivalent to
update(unique_ptr<T>())
.void update(unique_ptr<T> ptr);
- Effects: Atomically sets the value of
*this
toptr.get()
. May then reclaim the previous value of*this
(in the modification order), if it is eligible for reclamation, but will not wait for it to become eligible.- Synchronizaton: The atomic portion of this operation synchronizes with reclamation of the previous value of
*this
(in the modification order).bool try_update(const snapshot_ptr<T>& expected, std::unique_ptr<T>&& desired);
- Effects: If
expected.get()
is equal to the current value of*this
, then with high probability the value of*this
will be set todesired.release()
and the call will return true. Otherwise, the call will return false and have no other effect.- Synchronization: If the call returns true, it synchronizes with the reclamation of the value of
expected
.- Notes: This operation never causes reclamation.
basic_cell
value access [concur.basic_cell.access]snapshot_ptr<T> get_snapshot() const;
- Returns: A
snapshot_ptr
containing the current value of*this
.- Synchronization: This operation is dependency-ordered after the
update()
ortry_update()
call (if any) that caused*this
to have its current value.- Notes: The implementation should ensure this operation never blocks, and is as fast as possible.
Alias template
cell
[concur.cell.cell]template <class T, class Allocator = allocator<T>> using cell = basic_cell<see below, Allocator>;If
is_race_free_v<T>
is true, this is an alias forbasic_cell<T, Allocator>
. Otherwise, it is an alias forbasic_cell<const T, Allocator>
.[Note: As a result, for most non-pathological types
T
,cell<T>
is not subject to data races on either thecell
itself, or onT
objects accessed through it. — end note]Class template
snapshot_ptr
[concur.snapshot_ptr]A
snapshot_ptr
is smart pointer that can represent a "snapshot" of the value of abasic_cell
at a certain point in time. Everysnapshot_ptr
is guaranteed to either be null, or point to a live object of typeT
, so holding asnapshot_ptr
prevents the object it points to from being destroyed.[Note: In some implementations, a long-lived
snapshot_ptr
can prevent reclamation of anybasic_cell
values (anywhere in the program) that weren't eligible for reclamation it was created, so user code should ensure thatsnapshot_ptr
s have a bounded lifetime. — end note]A
snapshot_ptr
behaves as an ordinary value type, likeunique_ptr
; it will not be accessed concurrently unless user code does so explicitly, and it has no protection against data races other than what is specified for the library generally (20.5.5.9).namespace std { template <class T> class snapshot_ptr { public: // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
constructors snapshot_ptr(nullptr_t = nullptr); snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr&& other) noexcept; template <class U> snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr<U>&& other) noexcept; // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
destructor ~snapshot_ptr(); // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
assignment snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr&& other) noexcept; template <class U> snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr<U>&& other) noexcept; // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
observers T* get() const noexcept; T& operator*() const; T* operator->() const noexcept; explicit operator bool() const noexcept; // ?.?,snapshot_ptr
modifiers void reset(nullptr_t = nullptr) noexcept; void swap(snapshot_ptr& other) noexcept; // disable copy from lvalue snapshot_ptr(const snapshot_ptr&) = delete; snapshot_ptr& operator=(const snapshot_ptr&) = delete; }; }
snapshot_ptr
objects take on the same values asbasic_cell
objects. The value of asnapshot_ptr
will not change except as explicitly specified below.
snapshot_ptr
constructors [concur.snapshot_ptr.ctor]snapshot_ptr(nullptr_t = nullptr);
- Effects: Initializes
*this
with a null value.snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr&& other) noexcept; template <class U> snapshot_ptr(snapshot_ptr<U>&& other) noexcept;
- Remarks: The second overload shall not participate in overload resolution unless
U*
is implicitly convertible toT*
.- Postconditions:
other == nullptr
, and*this
has the value thatother
had prior to the operation.
snapshot_ptr
destructor [concur.snapshot_ptr.dtor]~snapshot_ptr()
- Effects: May reclaim the value of
*this
if it is eligible for reclamation, but will not wait for it to be eligible.- Synchronization: If the value of
*this
is not null, the start of this operation synchronizes with the reclamation of the value.- Notes: The implementation should avoid reclaiming the value synchronously, and should ensure that this operation does not block.
snapshot_ptr
assignment [concur.snapshot_ptr.assign]snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr&& other) noexcept; template <class U> snapshot_ptr& operator=(snapshot_ptr<U>&& other) noexcept;
- Remarks: The second overload shall not participate in overload resolution unless
U*
is implicitly convertible toT*
.- Effects: May reclaim the value that
other
had prior to the operation, if it is eligible for reclamation, but will not wait for it to be eligible.- Postconditions:
other == nullptr
, and*this
has the value thatother
had prior to the operation.- Returns:
*this
- Synchronization: If
*this
had a non-null value prior to the operation, the start of the operation synchronizes with the reclamation of the value.- Notes: The implementation should avoid reclaiming the value synchronously, and should ensure that this operation does not block.
snapshot_ptr
observers [concur.snapshot_ptr.observers]T* get() const noexcept;
- Returns: The value of
*this
.T& operator*() const;
- Effects: Equivalent to
return *get();
.T* operator->() const noexcept;
- Requires:
get() != nullptr
.- Returns:
get()
.explicit operator bool() const noexcept;
- Returns:
get() != nullptr
.
snapshot_ptr
modifiers [concur.snapshot_ptr.modifiers]void reset(nullptr_t = nullptr) noexcept;
- Postconditions:
*this
contains a null value.void swap(snapshot_ptr& other) noexcept;
- Effects: Exchanges the values of
*this
andother
.
snapshot_ptr
specialized algorithms [concur.snapshot_ptr.alg]template <class T> void swap(snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs) noexcept;
- Effects: Equivalent to
lhs.swap(rhs)
.template <class T, class U> bool operator==(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Returns: True if
lhs
andrhs
contain the same value, and false otherwise.template <class T, class U> bool operator!=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Returns:
!(lhs == rhs)
.template <class T, class U> bool operator<(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Effects: Equivalent to
return less<common_type_t<T*, U*>>()(L, R);
, whereL
is the value held bylhs
andR
is the value held byrhs
.template <class T, class U> bool operator<=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Returns:
!(rhs < lhs)
.template <class T, class U> bool operator>(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Returns:
rhs < lhs
.template <class T, class U> bool operator>=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, const snapshot_ptr<U>& rhs);
- Returns:
!(lhs < rhs)
.template <class T> bool operator==(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator!=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator<(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator<=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator>(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs); template <class T> bool operator>=(nullptr_t, const snapshot_ptr<T>& rhs);
- Returns:
snapshot_ptr<T>() OP rhs
, whereOP
is the operator being defined.template <class T> bool operator==(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator!=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator>(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator<(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator<=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t); template <class T> bool operator>=(const snapshot_ptr<T>& lhs, nullptr_t);
- Returns:
lhs OP snapshot_ptr<T>()
, whereOP
is the operator being defined.template <class T> struct hash<snapshot_ptr<T>>;The specialization is enabled ([unord.hash]).
Termination cleanup [concur.cell.cleanup]
void set_synchronize_cells_on_exit();
- Effects: If this function is called, and the call happens before an explicit or implicit call to
exit()
, then all current and pastbasic_cell
values will be reclaimed as a result of theexit()
call. The reclamation (if any) will be performed by the destructor of a static object declared in the<cell>
header. The behavior is undefined if:
exit()
is called from any thread other than the one that executesmain()
,- the termination of any other thread does not happen before the call to
exit()
,- or any
snapshot_ptr
orcell
object with a non-null value is still live when that destructor is entered.
shared_ptr
conversion.try_update()
.
basic_cell
and altered the role of
is_race_free
, in order to provide a per-instance
(as well as per-type) opt-out of default thread-safety.update()
calls are now guaranteed not to race with each
other, because it simplifies the API: it's easier to remember that
cell
is always race-free than to try to keep track of which
operations can race with which. As noted above, updates are expected
to be relatively rare, so additional locking in update()
should not matter, and in any event common implementations should be able
to support this without locking.cell
is not movable.snapshot_ptr
s to be destroyed in
the same thread where they are created; see the main text for the
rationale.cell_init
.cell<T>
grants ability to mutate the T
.use_count()
and
unique()
on shared_ptr
s created from
snapshot_ptr
s.update()
.Thanks to Paul McKenney and Maged Michael for valuable feedback on drafts of this paper.