Custom allocators as alternatives to vector of smart pointers? - c++

Question

This question is about owning pointers, consuming pointers, smart pointers, vectors, and allocators.
I am a little bit lost on my thoughts about code architecture. Furthermore, if this question has already an answer somewhere, 1. sorry, but I haven't found a satisfying answer so far and 2. please point me to it.
My problem is the following:
I have several "things" stored in a vector and several "consumers" of those "things". So, my first try was like follows:
std::vector<thing> i_am_the_owner_of_things;
thing* get_thing_for_consumer() {
// some thing-selection logic
return &i_am_the_owner_of_things[5]; // 5 is just an example
}
...
// somewhere else in the code:
class consumer {
consumer() {
m_thing = get_thing_for_consumer();
}
thing* m_thing;
};
In my application, this would be safe because the "things" outlive the "consumers" in any case. However, more "things" can be added during runtime and that can become a problem because if the std::vector<thing> i_am_the_owner_of_things; gets reallocated, all the thing* m_thing pointers become invalid.
A fix to this scenario would be to store unique pointers to "things" instead of "things" directly, i.e. like follows:
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<thing>> i_am_the_owner_of_things;
thing* get_thing_for_consumer() {
// some thing-selection logic
return i_am_the_owner_of_things[5].get(); // 5 is just an example
}
...
// somewhere else in the code:
class consumer {
consumer() {
m_thing = get_thing_for_consumer();
}
thing* m_thing;
};
The downside here is that memory coherency between "things" is lost. Can this memory coherency be re-established by using custom allocators somehow? I am thinking of something like an allocator which would always allocate memory for, e.g., 10 elements at a time and whenever required, adds more 10-elements-sized chunks of memory.
Example:
initially:
v = ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐
more elements:
v = ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ 🡒 ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐
and again:
v = ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ 🡒 ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐ 🡒 ☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐☐
Using such an allocator, I wouldn't even have to use std::unique_ptrs of "things" because at std::vector's reallocation time, the memory addresses of the already existing elements would not change.
As alternative, I can only think of referencing the "thing" in "consumer" via a std::shared_ptr<thing> m_thing, as opposed to the current thing* m_thing but that seems like the worst approach to me, because a "thing" shall not own a "consumer" and with shared pointers I would create shared ownership.
So, is the allocator-approach a good one? And if so, how can it be done? Do I have to implement the allocator by myself or is there an existing one?

Answer 1

If you are able to treat thing as a value type, do so. It simplifies things, you don't need a smart pointer for circumventing the pointer/reference invalidation issue. The latter can be tackled differently:
If new thing instances are inserted via push_front and push_back during the program, use std::deque instead of std::vector. Then, no pointers or references to elements in this container are invalidated (iterators are invalidated, though - thanks to #odyss-jii for pointing that out). If you fear that you heavily rely on the performance benefit of the completely contiguous memory layout of std::vector: create a benchmark and profile.
If new thing instances are inserted in the middle of the container during the program, consider using std::list. No pointers/iterators/references are invalidated when inserting or removing container elements. Iteration over a std::list is much slower than a std::vector, but make sure this is an actual issue in your scenario before worrying too much about that.

Answer 2

There is no single right answer to this question, since it depends a lot on the exact access patterns and desired performance characteristics.
Having said that, here is my recommendation:
Continue storing the data contiguously as you are, but do not store aliasing pointers to that data. Instead, consider a safer alternative (this is a proven method) where you fetch the pointer based on an ID right before using it -- as a side-note, in a multi-threaded application you can lock attempts to resize the underlying store whilst such a weak reference lives.
So your consumer will store an ID, and will fetch a pointer to the data from the "store" on demand. This also gives you control over all "fetches", so that you can track them, implement safety measure, etc.
void consumer::foo() {
thing *t = m_thing_store.get(m_thing_id);
if (t) {
// do something with t
}
}
Or more advanced alternative to help with synchronization in multi-threaded scenario:
void consumer::foo() {
reference<thing> t = m_thing_store.get(m_thing_id);
if (!t.empty()) {
// do something with t
}
}
Where reference would be some thread-safe RAII "weak pointer".
There are multiple ways of implementing this. You can either use an open-addressing hash table and use the ID as a key; this will give you roughly O(1) access time if you balance it properly.
Another alternative (best-case O(1), worst-case O(N)) is to use a "reference" structure, with a 32-bit ID and a 32-bit index (so same size as 64-bit pointer) -- the index serves as a sort-of cache. When you fetch, you first try the index, if the element in the index has the expected ID you are done. Otherwise, you get a "cache miss" and you do a linear scan of the store to find the element based on ID, and then you store the last-known index value in your reference.

Answer 3

IMO best approach would be create new container which will behave is safe way.
Pros:
change will be done on separate level of abstraction
changes to old code will be minimal (just replace std::vector with new container).
it will be "clean code" way to do it
Cons:
it may look like there is a bit more work to do
Other answer proposes use of std::list which will do the job, but with larger number of allocation and slower random access. So IMO it is better to compose own container from couple of std::vectors.
So it may start look more or less like this (minimum example):
template<typename T>
class cluster_vector
{
public:
static const constexpr cluster_size = 16;
cluster_vector() {
clusters.reserve(1024);
add_cluster();
}
...
size_t size() const {
if (clusters.empty()) return 0;
return (clusters.size() - 1) * cluster_size + clusters.back().size();
}
T& operator[](size_t index) {
thowIfIndexToBig(index);
return clusters[index / cluster_size][index % cluster_size];
}
void push_back(T&& x) {
if_last_is_full_add_cluster();
clusters.back().push_back(std::forward<T>(x));
}
private:
void thowIfIndexToBig(size_t index) const {
if (index >= size()) {
throw std::out_of_range("cluster_vector out of range");
}
}
void add_cluster() {
clusters.push_back({});
clusters.back().reserve(cluster_size);
}
void if_last_is_full_add_cluster() {
if (clusters.back().size() == cluster_size) {
add_cluster();
}
}
private:
std::vector<std::vector<T>> clusters;
}
This way you will provide container which will not reallocate items. It doesn't meter what T does.

Answer 4

[A shared pointer] seems like the worst approach to me, because a "thing" shall not own a "consumer" and with shared pointers I would create shared ownership.
So what? Maybe the code is a little less self-documenting, but it will solve all your problems.
(And by the way you are muddling things by using the word "consumer", which in a traditional producer/consumer paradigm would take ownership.)
Also, returning a raw pointer in your current code is already entirely ambiguous as to ownership. In general, I'd say it's good practice to avoid raw pointers if you can (like you don't need to call delete.) I would return a reference if you go with unique_ptr
std::vector<std::unique_ptr<thing>> i_am_the_owner_of_things;
thing& get_thing_for_consumer() {
// some thing-selection logic
return *i_am_the_owner_of_things[5]; // 5 is just an example
}