Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

C++ object-pool that provides items as smart-pointers that are returned to pool upon deletion

Tags:

I'm having fun with c++-ideas, and got a little stuck with this problem.

I would like a LIFO class that manages a pool of resources. When a resource is requested (through acquire()), it returns the object as a unique_ptr that, upon deletion, causes the resource to be returned to the pool.

The unit tests would be:

// Create the pool, that holds (for simplicity, int objects)
SharedPool<int> pool;
TS_ASSERT(pool.empty());

// Add an object to the pool, which is now, no longer empty
pool.add(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(42)));
TS_ASSERT(!pool.empty());

// Pop this object within its own scope, causing the pool to be empty
{
  auto v = pool.acquire();
  TS_ASSERT_EQUALS(*v, 42);
  TS_ASSERT(pool.empty());
}

// Object should now have returned to the pool
TS_ASSERT(!pool.empty())

Basic implementation, which would pass the tests, except for the important final test:

template <class T>
class SharedPool
{
 public:
  SharedPool(){}
  virtual ~SharedPool(){}

  void add(std::unique_ptr<T> t) {
    pool_.push(std::move(t));
  }

  std::unique_ptr<T> acquire() {
    assert(!pool_.empty());
    std::unique_ptr<T> tmp(std::move(pool_.top()));
    pool_.pop();
    return std::move(tmp);
  }

  bool empty() const {
    return pool_.empty();
  }

 private:
  std::stack<std::unique_ptr<T> > pool_;
};

The question: How to go about so that acquire() returns a unique_ptr of a type such that the deleter has knowledge of this, and calls this->add(...), returning the resource back to the pool.

like image 204
swalog Avatar asked Jan 07 '15 20:01

swalog


1 Answers

Naive implementation

The implementation uses unique_ptr with a custom deleter that returns objects to the pool. Both acquire and release are O(1). Additionally, unique_ptr with custom deleters can be implicitly converted to shared_ptr.

template <class T>
class SharedPool
{
 public:
  using ptr_type = std::unique_ptr<T, std::function<void(T*)> >;

  SharedPool() {}
  virtual ~SharedPool(){}

  void add(std::unique_ptr<T> t) {
    pool_.push(std::move(t));
  }

  ptr_type acquire() {
    assert(!pool_.empty());
    ptr_type tmp(pool_.top().release(),
                 [this](T* ptr) {
                   this->add(std::unique_ptr<T>(ptr));
                 });
    pool_.pop();
    return std::move(tmp);
  }

  bool empty() const {
    return pool_.empty();
  }

  size_t size() const {
    return pool_.size();
  }

 private:
  std::stack<std::unique_ptr<T> > pool_;
};

Example usage:

SharedPool<int> pool;
pool.add(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(42)));
pool.add(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(84)));
pool.add(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(1024)));
pool.add(std::unique_ptr<int>(new int(1337)));

// Three ways to express the unique_ptr object
auto v1 = pool.acquire();
SharedPool<int>::ptr_type v2 = pool.acquire();    
std::unique_ptr<int, std::function<void(int*)> > v3 = pool.acquire();

// Implicitly converted shared_ptr with correct deleter
std::shared_ptr<int> v4 = pool.acquire();

// Note that adding an acquired object is (correctly) disallowed:
// pool.add(v1);  // compiler error

You might have caught a severe problem with this implementation. The following usage isn't unthinkable:

  std::unique_ptr< SharedPool<Widget> > pool( new SharedPool<Widget> );
  pool->add(std::unique_ptr<Widget>(new Widget(42)));
  pool->add(std::unique_ptr<Widget>(new Widget(84)));

  // [Widget,42] acquired(), and released from pool
  auto v1 = pool->acquire();

  // [Widget,84] is destroyed properly, together with pool
  pool.reset(nullptr);

  // [Widget,42] is not destroyed, pool no longer exists.
  v1.reset(nullptr);
  // Memory leak

We need a way to keep alive information necessary for the deleter to make the distinction

  1. Should I return object to pool?
  2. Should I delete the actual object?

One way of doing this (suggested by T.C.), is having each deleter keep a weak_ptr to shared_ptr member in SharedPool. This lets the deleter know if the pool has been destroyed.

Correct implementation:

template <class T>
class SharedPool
{
 private:
  struct External_Deleter {
    explicit External_Deleter(std::weak_ptr<SharedPool<T>* > pool)
        : pool_(pool) {}

    void operator()(T* ptr) {
      if (auto pool_ptr = pool_.lock()) {
        try {
          (*pool_ptr.get())->add(std::unique_ptr<T>{ptr});
          return;
        } catch(...) {}
      }
      std::default_delete<T>{}(ptr);
    }
   private:
    std::weak_ptr<SharedPool<T>* > pool_;
  };

 public:
  using ptr_type = std::unique_ptr<T, External_Deleter >;

  SharedPool() : this_ptr_(new SharedPool<T>*(this)) {}
  virtual ~SharedPool(){}

  void add(std::unique_ptr<T> t) {
    pool_.push(std::move(t));
  }

  ptr_type acquire() {
    assert(!pool_.empty());
    ptr_type tmp(pool_.top().release(),
                 External_Deleter{std::weak_ptr<SharedPool<T>*>{this_ptr_}});
    pool_.pop();
    return std::move(tmp);
  }

  bool empty() const {
    return pool_.empty();
  }

  size_t size() const {
    return pool_.size();
  }

 private:
  std::shared_ptr<SharedPool<T>* > this_ptr_;
  std::stack<std::unique_ptr<T> > pool_;
};
like image 90
swalog Avatar answered Sep 23 '22 00:09

swalog