std::atomic
exists because many ISAs have direct hardware support for it
What the C++ standard says about std::atomic
has been analyzed in other answers.
So now let's see what std::atomic
compiles to to get a different kind of insight.
The main takeaway from this experiment is that modern CPUs have direct support for atomic integer operations, for example the LOCK prefix in x86, and std::atomic
basically exists as a portable interface to those intructions: What does the "lock" instruction mean in x86 assembly? In aarch64, LDADD would be used.
This support allows for faster alternatives to more general methods such as std::mutex
, which can make more complex multi-instruction sections atomic, at the cost of being slower than std::atomic
because std::mutex
it makes futex
system calls in Linux, which is way slower than the userland instructions emitted by std::atomic
, see also: Does std::mutex create a fence?
Let's consider the following multi-threaded program which increments a global variable across multiple threads, with different synchronization mechanisms depending on which preprocessor define is used.
main.cpp
#include <atomic>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
size_t niters;
#if STD_ATOMIC
std::atomic_ulong global(0);
#else
uint64_t global = 0;
#endif
void threadMain() {
for (size_t i = 0; i < niters; ++i) {
#if LOCK
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"lock incq %0;"
: "+m" (global),
"+g" (i) // to prevent loop unrolling
:
:
);
#else
__asm__ __volatile__ (
""
: "+g" (i) // to prevent he loop from being optimized to a single add
: "g" (global)
:
);
global++;
#endif
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
size_t nthreads;
if (argc > 1) {
nthreads = std::stoull(argv[1], NULL, 0);
} else {
nthreads = 2;
}
if (argc > 2) {
niters = std::stoull(argv[2], NULL, 0);
} else {
niters = 10;
}
std::vector<std::thread> threads(nthreads);
for (size_t i = 0; i < nthreads; ++i)
threads[i] = std::thread(threadMain);
for (size_t i = 0; i < nthreads; ++i)
threads[i].join();
uint64_t expect = nthreads * niters;
std::cout << "expect " << expect << std::endl;
std::cout << "global " << global << std::endl;
}
GitHub upstream.
Compile, run and disassemble:
comon="-ggdb3 -O3 -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic main.cpp -pthread"
g++ -o main_fail.out $common
g++ -o main_std_atomic.out -DSTD_ATOMIC $common
g++ -o main_lock.out -DLOCK $common
./main_fail.out 4 100000
./main_std_atomic.out 4 100000
./main_lock.out 4 100000
gdb -batch -ex "disassemble threadMain" main_fail.out
gdb -batch -ex "disassemble threadMain" main_std_atomic.out
gdb -batch -ex "disassemble threadMain" main_lock.out
Extremely likely "wrong" race condition output for main_fail.out
:
expect 400000
global 100000
and deterministic "correct" output of the others:
expect 400000
global 400000
Disassembly of main_fail.out
:
0x0000000000002780 <+0>: endbr64
0x0000000000002784 <+4>: mov 0x29b5(%rip),%rcx # 0x5140 <niters>
0x000000000000278b <+11>: test %rcx,%rcx
0x000000000000278e <+14>: je 0x27b4 <threadMain()+52>
0x0000000000002790 <+16>: mov 0x29a1(%rip),%rdx # 0x5138 <global>
0x0000000000002797 <+23>: xor %eax,%eax
0x0000000000002799 <+25>: nopl 0x0(%rax)
0x00000000000027a0 <+32>: add $0x1,%rax
0x00000000000027a4 <+36>: add $0x1,%rdx
0x00000000000027a8 <+40>: cmp %rcx,%rax
0x00000000000027ab <+43>: jb 0x27a0 <threadMain()+32>
0x00000000000027ad <+45>: mov %rdx,0x2984(%rip) # 0x5138 <global>
0x00000000000027b4 <+52>: retq
Disassembly of main_std_atomic.out
:
0x0000000000002780 <+0>: endbr64
0x0000000000002784 <+4>: cmpq $0x0,0x29b4(%rip) # 0x5140 <niters>
0x000000000000278c <+12>: je 0x27a6 <threadMain()+38>
0x000000000000278e <+14>: xor %eax,%eax
0x0000000000002790 <+16>: lock addq $0x1,0x299f(%rip) # 0x5138 <global>
0x0000000000002799 <+25>: add $0x1,%rax
0x000000000000279d <+29>: cmp %rax,0x299c(%rip) # 0x5140 <niters>
0x00000000000027a4 <+36>: ja 0x2790 <threadMain()+16>
0x00000000000027a6 <+38>: retq
Disassembly of main_lock.out
:
Dump of assembler code for function threadMain():
0x0000000000002780 <+0>: endbr64
0x0000000000002784 <+4>: cmpq $0x0,0x29b4(%rip) # 0x5140 <niters>
0x000000000000278c <+12>: je 0x27a5 <threadMain()+37>
0x000000000000278e <+14>: xor %eax,%eax
0x0000000000002790 <+16>: lock incq 0x29a0(%rip) # 0x5138 <global>
0x0000000000002798 <+24>: add $0x1,%rax
0x000000000000279c <+28>: cmp %rax,0x299d(%rip) # 0x5140 <niters>
0x00000000000027a3 <+35>: ja 0x2790 <threadMain()+16>
0x00000000000027a5 <+37>: retq
Conclusions:
the non-atomic version saves the global to a register, and increments the register.
Therefore, at the end, very likely four writes happen back to global with the same "wrong" value of 100000
.
std::atomic
compiles to lock addq
. The LOCK prefix makes the following inc
fetch, modify and update memory atomically.
our explicit inline assembly LOCK prefix compiles to almost the same thing as std::atomic
, except that our inc
is used instead of add
. Not sure why GCC chose add
, considering that our INC generated a decoding 1 byte smaller.
ARMv8 could use either LDAXR + STLXR or LDADD in newer CPUs: How do I start threads in plain C?
Tested in Ubuntu 19.10 AMD64, GCC 9.2.1, Lenovo ThinkPad P51.
a.fetch_add(12)
if you want an atomic RMW. – Kerrek SBstd::atomic
lets the standard library decide what's needed to achieve atomicity. – Drew Dormannstd::atomic<T>
is a type that allows for atomic operations. It doesn't magically make your life better, you still have to know what you want to do with it. It's for a very specific use case, and uses of atomic operations (on the object) are generally very subtle and need to be thought of from a non-local perspective. So unless you already know that and why you want atomic operations, the type is probably not of much use for you. – Kerrek SB