From answers to my previous question: Pointers in c++ after delete

從我上一個問題的答案:刪除后的c ++中的指針

it's become clear, that using the values of pointers, that point to "deleted" memory (in particular, copying them) lead to undef behaviour in c++11, and implementation-defined behaviour in c++14.

很明顯,使用指針的值,指向“刪除”的內存(特別是復制它們)會導致c ++ 11中的undef行為,以及c ++ 14中的實現定義行為。

Antomy Williams in his book "C++ concurrency in action" suggests the next lock-free stack with reference counting:

Antomy Williams在他的書“C ++並發行動”中建議使用引用計數的下一個無鎖堆棧:

#include <atomic>
#include <memory>

template<typename T>
class lock_free_stack
{
private:
    struct node;
    struct counted_node_ptr
    {
        int external_count;
        node* ptr;
    };
    struct node
    {
        std::shared_ptr<T> data;
        std::atomic<int> internal_count;
        counted_node_ptr next;
        node(T const& data_):
            data(std::make_shared<T>(data_)),
            internal_count(0)
        {}
    };
    std::atomic<counted_node_ptr> head;
    void increase_head_count(counted_node_ptr& old_counter)
    {
        counted_node_ptr new_counter;
        do
        {
            new_counter=old_counter;
            ++new_counter.external_count;
        }
        while(!head.compare_exchange_strong(
                  old_counter,new_counter,
                  std::memory_order_acquire,
                  std::memory_order_relaxed));
        old_counter.external_count=new_counter.external_count;
    }
public:
    ~lock_free_stack()
    {
        while(pop());
    }
    void push(T const& data)
    {
        counted_node_ptr new_node;
        new_node.ptr=new node(data);
        new_node.external_count=1;
        new_node.ptr->next=head.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)
            while(!head.compare_exchange_weak(
                      new_node.ptr->next,new_node,
                      std::memory_order_release,
                      std::memory_order_relaxed));
    }
    std::shared_ptr<T> pop()
    {
        counted_node_ptr old_head=
            head.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
        for(;;)
        {
            increase_head_count(old_head);
            node* const ptr=old_head.ptr;
            if(!ptr)
            {
                return std::shared_ptr<T>();
            }
            if(head.compare_exchange_strong(
                   old_head,ptr->next,std::memory_order_relaxed))
            {
                std::shared_ptr<T> res;
                res.swap(ptr->data);
                int const count_increase=old_head.external_count-2;
                if(ptr->internal_count.fetch_add(
                       count_increase,std::memory_order_release)==-count_increase)
                {
                    delete ptr;
                }
                return res;
            }
            else if(ptr->internal_count.fetch_add(
                        -1,std::memory_order_relaxed)==1)
            {
                ptr->internal_count.load(std::memory_order_acquire);
                delete ptr;
            }
        }
    }
};

I'm worried about function

我很擔心功能

void increase_head_count(counted_node_ptr& old_counter)
{
    counted_node_ptr new_counter;
    do
    {
        new_counter=old_counter;
        ++new_counter.external_count;
    }
    while(!head.compare_exchange_strong(
              old_counter,new_counter,
              std::memory_order_acquire,
              std::memory_order_relaxed));
    old_counter.external_count=new_counter.external_count;
}

It seems, that new_counter=old_counter; can be executed, when old_counter.ptr has been deleted by another thread.

看來,new_counter = old_counter;當old_counter.ptr被另一個線程刪除時,可以執行。

So, could somebody confirm or refuse, that this stack implementation is strictly incorrect in c++11?

那么,有人可以確認或拒絕,這個堆棧實現在c ++ 11中是嚴格錯誤的嗎?

1 个解决方案