`Arc<T>` places the refcounts immediately before `T` in memory. If you are desperate to have `T` and `T`'s refcounts be on different cachelines to reduce false sharing in some contrived scenario, `Arc<Box<T>>` would technically accomplish this. I think a more realistic optimization would be to pad the start of `T` however.
`Box<Box<T>>` and `Arc<Box<T>>` are thin pointers (size ≈ size_of::<usize>()) even when `Box<T>` is a fat pointer (size ≈ 2*size_of::<usize>() because `T` is `str`, `[u8]`, `dyn SomeTrait`, etc.). While various "thin" crates are typically saner alternatives for FFI or memory density (prefixing lengths/vtables in the pointed-at data instead of incurring double-indirection and double-allocation), these double boxes are a quick and dirty way of accomplishing guaranteed thin pointers with only `std` / `alloc`.
I would not call either of these use cases "extremely common" however.
`Arc<T>` places the refcounts immediately before `T` in memory. If you are desperate to have `T` and `T`'s refcounts be on different cachelines to reduce false sharing in some contrived scenario, `Arc<Box<T>>` would technically accomplish this. I think a more realistic optimization would be to pad the start of `T` however.
`Box<Box<T>>` and `Arc<Box<T>>` are thin pointers (size ≈ size_of::<usize>()) even when `Box<T>` is a fat pointer (size ≈ 2*size_of::<usize>() because `T` is `str`, `[u8]`, `dyn SomeTrait`, etc.). While various "thin" crates are typically saner alternatives for FFI or memory density (prefixing lengths/vtables in the pointed-at data instead of incurring double-indirection and double-allocation), these double boxes are a quick and dirty way of accomplishing guaranteed thin pointers with only `std` / `alloc`.
I would not call either of these use cases "extremely common" however.