Convert a Sorted Doubly Linked List to a Balanced BST In Place

Read the full interview experience this question came from →

Quick Overview

Rewire a sorted doubly linked list into a height-balanced binary search tree without allocating replacement nodes. The solution uses list length and in-order construction to preserve node identity, duplicates, linear time, balanced subtree sizes, and safe pointer updates.

Convert a Sorted Doubly Linked List to a Balanced BST In Place

Company: Salesforce

Role: Member of Technical Staff

Category: Software Engineering Fundamentals

Difficulty: medium

Interview Round: Onsite

# Convert a Sorted Doubly Linked List to a Balanced BST In Place You are given the head of a sorted doubly linked list. Each node has `prev`, `next`, and `value` fields. Rewire the existing nodes into a height-balanced binary search tree without allocating any new node. In the resulting tree, interpret `prev` as the left-child pointer and `next` as the right-child pointer. Return the root. Preserve every input node exactly once, and preserve the list's nondecreasing in-order value sequence. ### Constraints & Assumptions - The input list may be empty and may contain duplicate values. - `prev` and `next` are the only structural pointers available on a node. - Auxiliary scalar state and call-stack space are allowed; allocating replacement tree nodes or arrays of nodes is not. - Height-balanced means the left and right subtree heights of every node differ by at most one. ### Clarifying Questions to Ask - May duplicate values appear, and is preserving their original in-order identity sufficient? - Does “in place” permit recursion-stack memory? - Must the input list remain traversable after conversion, or may all links be repurposed? - How should an empty list be returned? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - Counting the list length without losing the head or corrupting links. - Building the tree in in-order sequence so the sorted list supplies nodes without repeated midpoint scans. - Reusing one current-list pointer and assigning each consumed node's `prev` and `next` as tree children. - Correct subtree sizes for even and odd lengths and a clear duplicate-value invariant. - `O(n)` time, logarithmic recursion depth for the balanced construction, and no new node allocation. - Edge cases for empty, singleton, two-node, and already skewed pointer layouts. ### Follow-up Questions 1. Why does repeatedly walking to the middle of each sublist become slower than linear time? 2. At what point may the algorithm safely overwrite the current node's original `prev` and `next` links? 3. How do subtree sizes guarantee the resulting height bound? 4. What would change if even recursion-stack allocation were prohibited?

Overview: Rewire a sorted doubly linked list into a height-balanced binary search tree without allocating replacement nodes. The solution uses list length and in-order construction to preserve node identity, duplicates, linear time, balanced subtree sizes, and safe pointer updates.

Read the full Salesforce Member of Technical Staff interview experience this question came from

|Home/Software Engineering Fundamentals/Salesforce
Salesforce logo
Salesforce
Aug 31, 2026
mediumMember of Technical StaffOnsiteSoftware Engineering Fundamentals
1
0

Convert a Sorted Doubly Linked List to a Balanced BST In Place

You are given the head of a sorted doubly linked list. Each node has prev, next, and value fields. Rewire the existing nodes into a height-balanced binary search tree without allocating any new node.

In the resulting tree, interpret prev as the left-child pointer and next as the right-child pointer. Return the root. Preserve every input node exactly once, and preserve the list's nondecreasing in-order value sequence.

Constraints & Assumptions

  • The input list may be empty and may contain duplicate values.
  • prev and next are the only structural pointers available on a node.
  • Auxiliary scalar state and call-stack space are allowed; allocating replacement tree nodes or arrays of nodes is not.
  • Height-balanced means the left and right subtree heights of every node differ by at most one.

Clarifying Questions to Ask Guidance

  • May duplicate values appear, and is preserving their original in-order identity sufficient?
  • Does “in place” permit recursion-stack memory?
  • Must the input list remain traversable after conversion, or may all links be repurposed?
  • How should an empty list be returned?

What a Strong Answer Covers Guidance

  • Counting the list length without losing the head or corrupting links.
  • Building the tree in in-order sequence so the sorted list supplies nodes without repeated midpoint scans.
  • Reusing one current-list pointer and assigning each consumed node's prev and next as tree children.
  • Correct subtree sizes for even and odd lengths and a clear duplicate-value invariant.
  • O(n) time, logarithmic recursion depth for the balanced construction, and no new node allocation.
  • Edge cases for empty, singleton, two-node, and already skewed pointer layouts.

Follow-up Questions Guidance

  1. Why does repeatedly walking to the middle of each sublist become slower than linear time?
  2. At what point may the algorithm safely overwrite the current node's original prev and next links?
  3. How do subtree sizes guarantee the resulting height bound?
  4. What would change if even recursion-stack allocation were prohibited?
Loading comments...