I am trying to make a prime sieve in Rust.
I need several mutable references to the same element of the array, not mutable references to different parts of the array.
For the way this works, I know data races are not a relevant problem, so multiple mutable references are acceptable, but the Rust compiler does not accept my unsafe code.
I am using crossbeam 0.8.0.
fn extend_helper(
primes: &Vec<usize>,
true_block: &mut Vec<bool>,
segment_min: usize,
segment_len: usize,
) {
crossbeam::scope(|scope| {
for prime in primes {
let prime = prime.clone();
let segment_min = &segment_min;
let segment_len = &segment_len;
let shared = unsafe { &mut *true_block };
scope.spawn(move |_| {
let tmp = smallest_multiple_of_n_geq_m(prime, *segment_min) - *segment_min;
for j in (tmp..*segment_len).step_by(prime) {
shared[j] = false;
}
});
}
})
.unwrap();
}
fn smallest_multiple_of_n_geq_m(n: usize, m: usize) -> usize {
m + ((n - (m % n)) % n)
}
error[E0499]: cannot borrow `*true_block` as mutable more than once at a time
--> src/lib.rs:12:35
|
7 | crossbeam::scope(|scope| {
| ----- has type `&Scope<'1>`
...
12 | let shared = unsafe { &mut *true_block };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `*true_block` was mutably borrowed here in the previous iteration of the loop
13 |
14 | / scope.spawn(move |_| {
15 | | let tmp = smallest_multiple_of_n_geq_m(prime, *segment_min) - *segment_min;
16 | | for j in (tmp..*segment_len).step_by(prime) {
17 | | shared[j] = false;
18 | | }
19 | | });
| |______________- argument requires that `*true_block` is borrowed for `'1`
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/lib.rs:12:26
|
12 | let shared = unsafe { &mut *true_block };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
How I should write the unsafe in a way that Rust accepts?
Rust does not allow that in its model. You want
AtomicBoolwith relaxed ordering.This is a somewhat common edge case in most concurrency models - if you have two non-atomic writes of the same value to one location, is that well-defined? In Rust (and C++) it is not, and you need to explicitly use atomic.
On any platform you care about, the atomic bool store with relaxed ordering will have no impact.
For a reason why this matters, consider:
At setting
xto true, the compiler is free to assume (due to no shared mutable references) thatxis still false. It may implement this assignment as, e.g.,inc xin assembly, moving its value from 0 to 1.If two threads came through this and both reached
*x = true, its value may become something other than 0 or 1, which could violate other assumed invariants.