I took the example about std::memory_order_seq_cst from: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <cassert>
std::atomic<bool> x = {false};
std::atomic<bool> y = {false};
std::atomic<int> z = {0};
void write_x()
{
x.store(true, std::memory_order_seq_cst);
}
void write_y()
{
y.store(true, std::memory_order_seq_cst);
}
void read_x_then_y()
{
while (!x.load(std::memory_order_seq_cst))
;
if (y.load(std::memory_order_seq_cst)) {
++z;
}
}
void read_y_then_x()
{
while (!y.load(std::memory_order_seq_cst))
;
if (x.load(std::memory_order_seq_cst)) {
++z;
}
}
int main()
{
std::thread a(write_x);
std::thread b(write_y);
std::thread c(read_x_then_y);
std::thread d(read_y_then_x);
a.join(); b.join(); c.join(); d.join();
assert(z.load() != 0); // will never happen
}
This example is also mentioned in the question of Acquire/Release versus Sequentially Consistent memory order.
My question is how it is possible that thread c and thread d see different things? If it is possible, why this simple example below always yields to z=3? For instance, thread b could say "okay I see 0 even though thread a is already done so z becomes 0+1 again"
#include <atomic>
#include <iostream>
std::atomic<int> z = {0};
void increment()
{
z.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
int main()
{
std::thread a(increment);
std::thread b(increment);
std::thread c(increment);
a.join(); b.join(); c.join();
std::cout << z.load() << '\n';
}
The default is std::memory_order_seq_cst which establishes a single total ordering over all atomic operations tagged with this tag: all threads see the same order of such atomic operations and no memory_order_seq_cst atomic operations can be reordered.
The relaxed mode is most commonly used when the programmer simply wants a variable to be atomic in nature rather than using it to synchronize threads for other shared memory data.
C++11 Memory Model. A memory model, a.k.a memory consistency model, is a specification of the allowed behavior of multithreaded programs executing with shared memory [1].
So by seeing different things in your comment you mean that Thread C see x==1,y==0 and Thread D see x==0 and y==1. Is that possible with sequential consistency?
Let's suppose this total order (the modification is the transition between this symbolized memory states):
{x==0,y==0} : S0
{x==1,y==0} : S1
{x==1,y==1} : S2
When we say "see" we mean that a thread potentialy performs a load. Two loads can not be performed simultaneously in one thread. So how is it possible that thread C see x==1 then see y==0 and Thread D see x==0 then see y==1? Thread C performs the two loads while the memory is in the state S1, and Thread D see x
at state S0, then see y
at state S2.
In your example code, what happens is that Thread C load x then load y, and Thread D load y repeatedly until it is true then load x. So after y==1, it is guarenteed that x==1
in this total order.
As said by Minee in its comment, nothing could be expected if in place of sequential consistency memory order were used acquire/release memory order: acquire/release semantic does not imply any total ordering,moreover there are no happens before relation between the store to x
and the store to y
. So the assertion z.load()!=0
could fire.
Because read-modify-write operations have special guarantees.
According to the standard [atomics.order] paragraph 11:
Atomic read-modify-write operations shall always read the last value (in the modification order) written before the write associated with the read-modify-write operation.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With