From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-22 13:49:54
Joseph Seigh wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Joseph Seigh wrote:
> > > Well, Detlefs calls it lock-free reference counting. But Boost
> > > would probably call what they're doing with thread-safe reference
> > > counting lock-free also, and they are not the same.
> > They don't call it "lock-free". Here's what they say:
> > http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2003/n1450.html
> > (A Proposal to Add General Purpose Smart Pointers to...)
> > "....
> > The count structure C has the following members:
> > Virtual table pointer (C is polymorphic);
> > Use count;
> > Weak count;
> > Mutex (for multithreaded builds);
> > Original pointer passed to the constructor;
> > Deleter.
> > ....
> > The mutex presents another target for platform-specific
> > optimizations. On Windows, we have been able to use a simple
> > one-word spinlock instead of a 6 word CRITICAL_SECTION. The
> > portable architecture of the implementation that abstracts
> > the mutex concept in a separate class prevents further
> > optimizations, like reusing the use count word as the
> > spinlock, or using the Windows API InterlockedIncrement,
> > InterlockedDecrement, and InterlockedCompareExchange
> > primitives to attempt to eliminate the mutex altogether.
> > Nevertheless, we believe that such optimizations are
> > possible.
> > ...."
> The fact that they consider and have done simplistic spin locks
> speaks for itself. Also, they make a whole lot of distinctions
> that don't translate very well into a threaded environment.
> Their style of semantic definition with that pre and post internal
> data state stuff doesn't work in multi-threading. The one thing
> you usually cannot reliably observe in multi-threading is internal data
> state. You have to use other mechanisms to define semantics for
> multi-threading. To say nothing of their multiple attempts to
> deal with data "ownership". It's why they have so many pointer
> types, all compromised in some degree or other for some small
> incremental benefit.
> > > The meaning
> > > of atomic w.r.t java pointers is or should be well understood, so
> > > atomic something would be indicated. Also, it wouldn't preclude
> > > a non lock-free implementation, though you would lose the bemefits
> > > of lock-free.
> > >
> > > Maybe atomic_shared_ptr.
> > Well, I'd love to have a policy-based framework that would
> > allow me to specify the *thread-safety policy*:
> > thread_safety::unsafe
> > "naked" count(s)
> > thread_safety::basic
> > pthread_refcount_t stuff (<http://tinyurl.com/cewa>)
> > thread_safety::strong
> > your "atomic" stuff
> > or something like that. Note that for the blocking stuff, one
> > would REALLY want to have some support for priority protocols
> > (priority protection or priority inheritance) to fight the
> > "unbounded priority inversion" problem in the "realtime" apps.
> I'm never quite sure what "thread-safe" really means. It seems
> to get used in different ways sometimes. Atomic is easy to define.
> It just means that you will only ever read some previously stored
> Joe Seigh
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk