Multithreading unordered_map

Question

I'm working in a multithreading environment. Basically, I have an unordered_map which could be accessed by multiple threads at the same time. Right now, my algorithm is:

function foo(key) {
  scoped_lock()
  if key exists {
    return Map[key]
  }

  value = get_value()
  Map[key] = value
}

Obviously the performance are not good with this implementation. Is there any algorithm/approach that I can use in order to improve performance?

EDIT:

I did a number of tests and I thought about the double-checked locking. So, I modified the code with:

function foo(key) {
  if key exists {
    return Map[key]
  }

  scoped_lock()
  if key exists {
    return Map[key]
  }

  value = get_value()
  Map[key] = value
}

Actually I only add another check before the scoped_lock(). In this scenario, suppose function is called N times. If the first m calls to foo , where m < N , filled the map and the next N - m calls only get values from the map, I don't need the exclusive access. Moreover, there is another check after the scoped_lock which ensures thread safety. Am I right? In any case, with the first code the execution needs ~208s, while the second one ~200s.

Answer 1

Here is a utility class:

template<class T, class M=std::mutex, template<class...>class S=std::unique_lock, template<class...>class U=std::unique_lock>
struct mutex_protected {
  template<class F>
  auto read( F&& f ) const
  -> typename std::result_of<F&&(T const&)>::type
  {
    auto l = lock();
    return std::forward<F>(f)(data);
  }
  template<class F>
  auto write( F&& f ) 
  -> typename std::result_of<F&&(T&)>::type
  {
    auto l = lock();
    return std::forward<F>(f)(data);
  }
  mutex_protected(mutex_protected&&)=delete;
  mutex_protected& operator=(mutex_protected&&)=delete;

  template<class...Args>
  mutex_protected( Args&&...args ):
    data( std::forward<Args>(args)... )
  {}
private:
  mutable M m;
  T data;

  U<M> lock() { return U<M>(m); }
  S<M> lock() const { return S<M>(m); }
};

it, especially in c++14 , lets you interact with a mutex protected instance of data in an easy to write way.

In c++14 you can use std::shared_timed_mutex and in c++17 you can use std::shared_mutex like this:

template<class T>
using rw_guarded = mutex_guarded< T, std::shared_mutex, std::shared_lock >;

this enables the ability to have many readers at once. But you should first determine if the simple mutex one is fast enough.

struct cache {
  using Key=std::string;
  using Value=int;
  using Map=std::unordered_map< Key, Value >;
  Value get( Key const& k ) {
    Value* r = table.read([&](Map const& m)->Value*{
      auto it = m.find(k);
      if (it == m.end()) return nullptr;
      return std::addressof( it->second );
    });
    if (r) return *r;
    return table.write([&](Map& m)->Value{
      auto it = m.find(k);
      if (it != m.end()) return it->second;
      auto r = m.insert( std::make_pair(k, 42) ); // construct data here
      return r.first->second;
    });
  }
private:
  mutex_guarded< std::unordered_map< Key, Value > > table;
};

Upgrade mutex_guarded to rw_guarded and it switches to reader-writer locks.

---

Here is a more complex version:

Have two maps; one to value, one to shared future of value.

Use a reader writer lock (aka shared mutex).

To get, get a shared lock. Check if it is there. If it is, return.

Unlock first map. Lock second map for writing. If there isn't already a shared future under the key, add one. Unlock map 2, and wait on shared future regardless of if you added it.

When done, lock first map for reading; check if result already there. If yes, return it. If not, unlock, relock for writing, move data into map 1 if not already there, return data in first map.

This is designed to minimize the period map 1 is locked for exclusively, allowing max concurrency there.

Other designs will optimize other considerations.

Do not use operator[] . Do not interact with any map without a lock of some kind active. Know which locks correspond to which map. Note that reading elements (not looking up) can be done without a lock in some cases. Sometimes reading copies of shared things is required, not the shared thing. Look up the docs of every type to determine what operations need what locks.