原子操作在多线程开发中经常用到，比如在计数器，序列产生器等地方，这类情况下数据有并发的危险，但是用锁去保护又显得有些浪费，所以原子类型操作十分的方便。
原子操作虽然用起来简单，但是其背景远比我们想象的要复杂。其主要在于现代计算系统过于的复杂：多处理器、多核处理器、处理器又有核心独有以及核心共享的多级缓存，在这种情况下，一个核心修改了某个变量，其他核心什么时候可见是一个十分严肃的问题。同时在极致最求性能的时代，处理器和编译器往往表现的很智能，进行极度的优化，比如什么乱序执行、指令重排等，虽然可以在当前上下文中做到很好的优化，但是放在多核环境下常常会引出新的问题来，这时候就必须提示编译器和处理器某种提示，告诉某些代码的执行顺序不能被优化。
所以这里说到的原子操作，基本都包含我们三个方面所关心的语义：操作本身是不可分割的(Atomicity)，一个线程对某个数据的操作何时对另外一个线程可见(Visibility)，执行的顺序是否可以被重排(Ordering)。
一、legacy GCC __sync
据说在C++11标准出来之前，大家都诟病C++标准没有一个明确的内存模型，随着多线程开发的普及这个问题显得越来越迫切。当然各个C++编译器实现者也是各自为政，GCC自然是实用主义当道，于是根据Intel的开发手册老早就搞出了一系列的__sync原子操作函数集合，这也是被广大程序员最为熟悉常用的操作了吧，罗列如下：
type __sync_fetch_and_OP (type *ptr, type value, ...) type __sync_OP_and_fetch (type *ptr, type value, ...) bool__sync_bool_compare_and_swap (type *ptr, type oldval, type newval, ...) type __sync_val_compare_and_swap (type *ptr, type oldval, type newval, ...) __sync_synchronize (...) type __sync_lock_test_and_set (type *ptr, type value, ...) void__sync_lock_release (type *ptr, ...)
上面的OP操作包括add、sub、or、and、xor、nand这些常见的数学操作，而type表示的数据类型Intel官方允许的是int、long、long long的带符号和无符号类型，但是GCC扩展后允许任意1/2/4/8的标量类型；CAS的操作有两个版本分别返回bool表示是否成功，而另外一个在操作之前会先返回ptr地址处存储的值；__sync_synchronize直接插入一个full memory barrier，当然你也可能经常见到像asm volatile(“” ::: “memory”);这样的操作。前面的这些原子操作都是full barrier类型的，这意味着：任何内存操作的指令不允许跨越这些操作重新排序。
__sync_lock_test_and_set用于将value的值写入ptr的位置，同时返回ptr之前存储的值，其内存模型是acquire barrier，意味着该操作之后的memory store指令不允许重排到该操作之前去，不过该操作之前的memory store可以排到该操作之后去，而__sync_lock_release则更像是对前面一个操作锁的释放，通常意味着将0写入ptr的位置，该操作是release barrier，意味着之前的memory store是全局可见的，所有的memory load也都完成了，但是接下来的内存读取可能会被排序到该操作之前执行。可以这里比较绕，翻译起来也比较的拗口，不过据我所见，这里很多是用在自旋锁类似的操作上，比如：
staticvolatileint_sync;
staticvoidlock_sync(){
while(__sync_lock_test_and_set(&_sync,1));
}
staticvoidunlock_sync(){
__sync_lock_release(&_sync);
}
其实这里的1可以是任何non-zero的值，主要是用作bool的效果。
二、C++11 新标准中的内存模型
上面GCC那种full barrier的操作确实有效，但是就像当初系统内核从单核切换到多核用大颗粒锁一样的简单粗暴，先不说这种形势下编译器和处理器无法进行优化，光要变量使其对他处理器可见，就需要在处理间进行硬件级别的同步，显然是十分耗费资源的。在C++11新标准中规定的内存模型(memory model)颗粒要细化的多，如果熟悉这些内存模型，在保证业务正确的同时可以将对性能的影响减弱到最低。
原子变量的通用接口使用store()和load()方式进行存取，可以额外接受一个额外的memory order参数，而不传递的话默认是最强模式Sequentially Consistent。
根据执行线程之间对变量的同步需求强度，新标准下的内存模型可以分成如下几类：
2.1 Sequentially Consistent
该模型是最强的同步模式，参数表示为std::memory_order_seq_cst，同时也是默认的模型。
-Thread 1- -Thread2- y = 1if(x.load() ==2) x.store (2); assert (y ==1)
对于上面的例子，即使x和y是不相关的，通常情况下处理器或者编译器可能会对其访问进行重排，但是在seq_cst模式下，x.store(2)之前的所有memory accesses都会happens-before在这次store操作。
另外一个角度来说：对于seq_cst模式下的操作，所有memory accesses操作的重排不允许跨域这个操作，同时这个限制是双向的。
2.2 Acquire/Release
GCC的wiki可能讲的不太清楚，查看下面的典型Acquire/Release的使用例子：
std::atomic<int> a{0};
intb =0;
-Thread 1-
b = 1;
a.store(1, memory_order_release);
-Thread 2-
while(a.load(memory_order_acquire) !=1)/*waiting*/;
std::cout<< b <<'\n';
毫无疑问，如果是seq_cst，那么上面的操作一定是成功的(打印变量b显示为1)。
a. memory_order_release保证在这个操作之前的memory accesses不会重排到这个操作之后去，但是这个操作之后的memory accesses可能会重排到这个操作之前去。通常这个主要是用于之前准备某些资源后，通过store+memory_order_release的方式”Release”给别的线程；
b. memory_order_acquire保证在这个操作之后的memory accesses不会重排到这个操作之前去，但是这个操作之前的memory accesses可能会重排到这个操作之后去。通常通过load+memory_order_acquire判断或者等待某个资源，一旦满足某个条件后就可以安全的“Acquire”消费这些资源了。
2.3 Consume
这是一个相比Acquire/Release更加宽松的内存模型，对非依赖的变量也去除了happens-before的限制，减少了所需同步的数据量，可以加快执行的速度。
-Thread 1- n = 1 m = 1 p.store (&n, memory_order_release) -Thread 2- t = p.load (memory_order_acquire); assert( *t == 1&& m ==1); -Thread 3- t = p.load (memory_order_consume); assert( *t == 1&& m ==1);
线程2的assert会pass，而线程3的assert可能会fail，因为n出现在了store表达式中，算是一个依赖变量，会确保对该变量的memory access会happends-before在这个store之前，但是m没有依赖关系，所以不会同步该变量，对其值不作保证。
Comsume模式因为降低了需要在硬件之间同步的数量，所以理论上其执行的速度会比之上面的内存模型块一些，尤其在共享内存大规模数据量情况下，应该会有较明显的差异表现出来。
在这里，Acquire/Consume~Release这种线程间同步协作的机制就被完全暴露了，通常会形成Acquired/Consume来等待Release的某个状态更新。需要注意的是这样的通信需要两个线程间成对的使用才有意义，同时对于没有使用这个内存模型的第三方线程没有任何作用效果。
2.4 Relaxed
最宽松的模式，memory_order_relaxed没有happens-before的约束，编译器和处理器可以对memory access做任何的re-order，因此另外的线程不能对其做任何的假设，这种模式下能做的唯一保证，就是一旦线程读到了变量var的最新值，那么这个线程将再也见不到var修改之前的值了。
这种情况通常是在需要原子变量，但是不在线程间同步共享数据的时候会用，同时当relaxed存一个数据的时候，另外的线程将需要一个时间才能relaxed读到该值，在非缓存一致性的构架上需要刷新缓存。在开发的时候，如果你的上下文没有共享的变量需要在线程间同步，选用Relaxed就可以了。
2.5 小结
看到这里，你对Atomic原子操作，应当不仅仅停留在indivisable的层次了，因为所有的内存模型都能保证对变量的修改是原子的，C++11新标准的原子应该上升到了线程间数据同步和协作的问题了，跟前面的LockFree关系也比较密切。
手册上也这样告诫菜鸟程序员：除非你知道这是什么，需要减弱线程间原子上下文同步的耦合性增加执行效率，才考虑这里的内存模型来优化你的程序，否则还是老老实实的使用默认的memory_order_seq_cst，虽然速度可能会慢点，但是稳妥些，万一由于你不成熟的优化带来问题，是很难去调试的。
三、C++11 GCC __atomic
GCC实现了C++11之后，上面的__sync系列操作就变成了Legacy而不被推荐使用了，而基于C++11的新原子操作接口使用__atomic作为前缀。
对于普通的数学操作函数，其函数接口形式为：
type __atomic_OP_fetch (type *ptr, type val,intmemorder); type __atomic_fetch_OP (type *ptr, type val,intmemorder);
除此之外，还根据新标准提供了一些新的接口：
type __atomic_load_n (type *ptr,intmemorder); void__atomic_store_n (type *ptr, type val,intmemorder); type __atomic_exchange_n (type *ptr, type val,intmemorder); bool__atomic_compare_exchange_n (type *ptr, type *expected, type desired,boolweak,intsuccess_memorder,intfailure_memorder); bool__atomic_test_and_set (void*ptr,intmemorder); void__atomic_clear (bool*ptr,intmemorder); void__atomic_thread_fence (intmemorder); bool__atomic_always_lock_free (size_tsize,void*ptr); bool__atomic_is_lock_free (size_tsize,void*ptr);
从函数名，看起来意思也很明了吧，上面的带_n的后缀版本如果去掉_n就是不用提供memorder的seq_cst版本。最后的两个函数，是判断系统上对于某个长度的对象是否会产生lock-free的原子操作，一般long long这种8个字节是没有问题的，对于支持128位整形的构架就可以达到16字节无锁结构了。
Boost.Asio这里就不在罗列了，不过其中有一些例子比较好，基于内存模型的Wait-free的ring buffer、producer-customer的例子，可以去看看。
参考文献
6.52 Built-in Functions for Memory Model Aware Atomic Operations
6.51 Legacy __sync Built-in Functions for Atomic Memory Access
Concurrent programming the fast and dirty way!
GCC wiki on atomic synchronization
---------------------------------->人生犹如负重致远，不可急于求成。 自律使人自由！
Memory model synchronization modes
This is the area most people find confusing when looking at the memory model. Atomic variables are primarily used to synchronize shared memory accesses between threads. Typically one thread creates data, then stores to an atomic. Other threads read from this atomic, and when the expected value is seen, the data the other thread was creating is going to be complete and visible in this thread. The different memory model modes are used to indicate how strong this data-sharing bond is between threads. Knowledgeable programmers can utilize the weaker models to make more efficient software.
Each atomic class has a load() and a store() operation which is utilized to perform assignments. This helps make it clearer when atomic operations are being performed rather than a normal assignment.
atomic_var1.store (atomic_var2.load()); // atomic variables
vs
var1 = var2; // regular variables
These operations also have a second optional parameter which is used to specify the memory model mode to use for synchronization.
There are 3 modes or models which allow the programmer to specify the type of inter-thread synchronization.
Sequentially Consistent
The first model is “sequentially consistent”. This is the default mode used when none is specified, and it is the most restrictive. It can also be explicitly specified via std::memory_order_seq_cst. It provides the same restrictions and limitation to moving loads around that sequential programmers are inherently familiar with, except it applies across threads.
-Thread 1- -Thread 2- y = 1 if (x.load() == 2) x.store (2); assert (y == 1)
Although x and y are unrelated variables, the memory model specifies that the assert cannot fail. The store to 'y' happens-before the store to x in thread 1. If the load of 'x' in thread 2 gets the results of the store that happened in thread 1, it must all see all operations that happened before the store in thread 1, even unrelated ones. That means the optimizer is not free to reorder the two stores in thread 1 since thread 2 must see the store to Y as well.
This also applies to loads as well:
a = 0
y = 0
b = 1
-Thread 1- -Thread 2-
x = a.load() while (y.load() != b)
y.store (b) ;
while (a.load() == x) a.store(1)
;
Thread 2 loops until the value of 'y' changes, and proceeds to change 'a'. thread 1 is waiting for 'a' to change.
When normally compiling sequential code, the 'while (a.load() == x)' in thread 1 looks like an infinite loop, and might be optimized as such. Instead, the load of 'a' and comparison to 'x' must happen on each iteration of the loop in order for thread 1 and 2 to proceed as expected.
From a practical point of view, this amounts to all atomic operations acting as optimization barriers. If one could imagine atomic loads and stores as function calls with unknown side effects, this would model the effects in the optimizers. Its OK to re-order things between atomic operations, but not across the operation. Thread local stuff is also unaffected since there is no visibility to other threads.
This mode also provides consistency across all threads. Neither assert in this example can fail (x and y are initially 0):
-Thread 1- -Thread 2- -Thread 3-
y.store (20); if (x.load() == 10) { if (y.load() == 10)
x.store (10); assert (y.load() == 20) assert (x.load() == 10)
y.store (10)
}
It seems reasonable to expect this behaviour, but cross thread implementation requires the system bus to be synchronized such that thread 3 actually gets the same results that thread 2 observed. This can involve some expensive hardware synchronization.
This mode is the default for good reason, programmers are far less likely to get unexpected results when this mode is in use.
Relaxed
The opposite approach is std::memory_order_relaxed. This model allows for much less synchronization by removing the happens-before restrictions. These types of atomic operations can also have various optimizations performed on them, such as dead store removal and commoning.
So in the earlier example:
-Thread 1-
y.store (20, memory_order_relaxed)
x.store (10, memory_order_relaxed)
-Thread 2-
if (x.load (memory_order_relaxed) == 10)
{
assert (y.load(memory_order_relaxed) == 20) /* assert A */
y.store (10, memory_order_relaxed)
}
-Thread 3-
if (y.load (memory_order_relaxed) == 10)
assert (x.load(memory_order_relaxed) == 10) /* assert B */
Since threads don't need to be synchronized across the system, either assert in this example can actually FAIL.
Without any happens-before edges, no thread can count on a specific ordering from another thread. This can obviously lead to some unexpected results if one isn't very careful. The only ordering imposed is that once a value for a variable from thread 1 is observed in thread 2, thread 2 can not see an “earlier” value for that variable from thread 1. ie, assuming 'x' is initially 0:
-Thread 1- x.store (1, memory_order_relaxed) x.store (2, memory_order_relaxed) -Thread 2- y = x.load (memory_order_relaxed) z = x.load (memory_order_relaxed) assert (y <= z)
The assert cannot fail. Once the store of 2 is seen by thread 2, it can no longer see the value 1. This prevents coalescing relaxed loads of one variable across relaxed loads of a different reference that might alias.
There is also the presumption that relaxed stores from one thread are seen by relaxed loads in another thread within a reasonable amount of time. That means that on non-cache-coherent architectures, relaxed operations need to flush the cache (although these flushes can be merged across several relaxed operations)
The relaxed mode is most commonly used when the programmer simply wants an variable to be atomic in nature rather than using it to synchronize threads for other shared memory data.
Acquire/Release
The third mode is a hybrid between the other two. The acquire/release mode is similar to the sequentially consistent mode, except it only applies a happens-before relationship to dependent variables. This allows for a relaxing of the synchronization required between independent reads of independent writes.
Assuming 'x' and 'y' are initially 0:
-Thread 1- y.store (20, memory_order_release); -Thread 2- x.store (10, memory_order_release); -Thread 3- assert (y.load (memory_order_acquire) == 20 && x.load (memory_order_acquire) == 0) -Thread 4- assert (y.load (memory_order_acquire) == 0 && x.load (memory_order_acquire) == 10)
Both of these asserts can pass since there is no ordering imposed between the stores in thread 1 and thread 2.
If this example were written using the sequentially consistent model, then one of the stores must happen-before the other (although the order isn't determined until run-time), the values are synchronized between threads, and if one assert passes, the other assert must therefore fail.
To make matters a bit more complex, the interactions of non-atomic variables are still the same. Any store before an atomic operation must be seen in other threads that synchronize. For example:
-Thread 1-
y = 20;
x.store (10, memory_order_release);
-Thread 2-
if (x.load(memory_order_acquire) == 10)
assert (y == 20);
Since 'y' is not an atomic variable, the store to 'y' happens-before the store to 'x', so the assert cannot fail in this case. The optimizers must still limit the operations performed on shared memory variables around atomic operations.
Consume
std:memory_order_consume is a further subtle refinement in the release/acquire memory model that relaxes the requirements slightly by removing the happens before ordering on non-dependent shared variables as well.
Assuming n and m are both regular shared variables initially set to 0, and each thread picks up the store to 'p' in thread 1 :
-Thread 1- n = 1 m = 1 p.store (&n, memory_order_release) -Thread 2- t = p.load (memory_order_acquire); assert( *t == 1 && m == 1 ); -Thread 3- t = p.load (memory_order_consume); assert( *t == 1 && m == 1 );
The assert in thread 2 will pass because the store to 'm' happens-before the store to p in thread 1.
The assert in thread 3 can fail because there is no longer a dependency between the store to p, and the store to m, and therefore the values do not need to be synchronized. This models the PowerPC and ARM's default memory ordering for pointer loads. (and possibly some MIPs targets)
Both threads will see the correct value of n == 1 since it is used in the store expression.
The real difference boils down to how much state the hardware has to flush in order to synchronize. Since a consume operation may therefore execute faster, someone who knows what they are doing can use it for performance critical applications.
Overall Summary
Its actually not as complex as it sounds, so in an attempt to un-glaze your eyes, examine this case for each of the different memory models:
-Thread 1- -Thread 2- -Thread 3-
y.store (20); if (x.load() == 10) { if (y.load() == 10)
x.store (10); assert (y.load() == 20) assert (x.load() == 10)
y.store (10)
}
When 2 threads synchronize in sequentially consistent mode, all the visible variables must be flushed through the system so that all threads see the same state. Both asserts must therefore be true.
Release/acquire mode only requires the two threads involved to be synchronized. This means that synchronized values are not commutative to other threads. The assert in thread 2 must still be true since thread 1 and 2 synchronize with x.load(). Thread 3 is not involved in this synchronization, so when thread 2 and 3 synchronize with y.load(), thread 3's assert can fail. There has been no synchronization between threads 1 and 3, so no value can be assumed for 'x' there.
If the stores are release and loads are consume the results are the same as release/acquire except there may be less hardware synchronization required. Why not always use consume? The reason is that this example doesn't have any shared memory being synchronized. You may not see the values of any shared memory before the stores in the synchronization unless it is a parameter to the store.. ie, its only a synchronization on shared memory variables used to calculate the store value.
If everything were relaxed, then both asserts can fail because there is no synchronization at all.
Mixing memory models
And finally, what about mixed modes... ie:
-Thread 1-
y.store (20, memory_order_relaxed)
x.store (10, memory_order_seq_cst)
-Thread 2-
if (x.load (memory_order_relaxed) == 10)
{
assert (y.load(memory_order_seq_cst) == 20) /* assert A */
y.store (10, memory_order_relaxed)
}
-Thread 3-
if (y.load (memory_order_acquire) == 10)
assert (x.load(memory_order_acquire) == 10) /* assert B */
First off, don't do it, it will be very confusing! 
Second, Its still a fair question, so taking a stab at it... Think of what happens for synchronization at each point. Stores tend to execute the store, then execute whatever system flushing needs to be done on their processor. Loads will issue whatever synchronizing instructions are needed to acquire all the states that have been flushed, and then execute the load.
Thread 1 : y.store is relaxed, so it issues no synchronizations and can be moved around. x.store is seq_cst, so it forces the state of thread 1 to be flushed before it proceeds. And it will still force the store to y to happen sometime before this synchronization.
Thread 2 : The x.load is relaxed, so it wont force any synchronization. Even though thread 1 flushed its state to the system, thread 2 does not do anything to make sure it is synchronized with the system. This should mean everything is in an unknown state anarchy. Just because it happens to see a value of 10 doesn't mean it is synchronized with all the things that happened before x.store(10) in thread 1.
Oddly enough, the load of Y will force a synchronization before it proceeds, so from THAT point on things would be what you expect. Messy eh.
Thread 3 : y.load is an acquire, so it will first get whatever state thread 2 has flushed. Unfortunately, the y.store in thread 2 is relaxed, so it hasn't issued any flushing instructions,and may have been moved around by the optimizers. So the results are again highly unpredictable.
Bottom line, mixing modes is dangerous, especially if it involves a relaxed mode. Mixing seq_cst and release/acquire can be done with care, but you really do need to have a thorough understanding the subtleties. You probably need good debugging tools too!!!
扫一扫
741
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
