[Development] atomic reference counting implementation
philwave at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 20:46:00 CEST 2019
The talk of Herb Sutter at 1h20m
is pretty clear.
>> I think I'm on record saying such impl details as ref-counting for Qt implicitly shared classes
>> should not be public API. This is a perfect example of why I believe that to be fundamentally true.
On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 21:00:30 +0300
"Mutz, Marc" <marc at kdab.com> wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> This was discussed in https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/66118. See, in particular, Olivier's comment.
> TL;DR: ref() is documented to be ordered, so cannot be changed.
> Consequently, I didn't merge it even with Thiago's +2.
> To fix, we'd need to port all of the Qt classes away from the public classes (QSharedData, QAtomicInt) and implement ref-counting completely from scratch (well, copy QSharedData ? QSharedDataV2, QAtomicInt ? QAtomicIntV2, and do the change in V2). That, or we introduce silent breakages into user code by applying 66118, something our Chief Whip has just announced publicly should not happen:
> > If we must break compatibility, a compile-time error is preferable
> > over a silent breakage at runtime (as those are much harder to detect).
> I think I'm on record saying such impl details as ref-counting for Qt implicitly shared classes should not be public API. This is a perfect example of why I believe that to be fundamentally true.
> On 2019-08-07 19:36, Philippe wrote:
> > I recently found that in Qt, reference counting to guard a resource,
> > is using
> > ref() / deref()
> > But ref() is using memory_order_seq_cst
> > while memory_order_relaxed, should be sufficient
> > What is important is to guarantee that destruction is not subject to a
> > race condition, to prevent double
> > destruction. Hence deref() with memory_order_seq_cst is enough to
> > guarantee
> > that.
> > It does not matter how much the counter increase, but what is important
> > is to control how it is decreased. Hence deref(with
> > memory_order_seq_cst)
> > is just enough.
> > I have verified the implementaiton of reference counting for shared_ptr
> > in clang, and it does what I describe above
> > (it even just use memory_order_acq_rel to decrement, and not
> > memory_order_seq_cst)
> > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/include/memory#L3344
> > Is there a reason why Qt is not optimized in the same way? (since ref()
> > is
> > used a lot, and atomic operations are a bit expensive).
> > Is there a requirement at some stage that the reference counter must be
> > ordered for increments?
> > Philippe
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at qt-project.org
> > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
More information about the Development