The following code produces random values for both n and v. It's not surprising that n is random without being properly protected. But it is supposed that v should finally be 0. Is there anything wrong in my code? Or could anyone explain this for me? Thanks.
I'm working on a 4-core server of x86 architecture. The uname is as follows.
Linux 2.6.9-22.ELsmp #1 SMP Mon Sep 19 18:00:54 EDT 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <asm-x86_64/atomic.h>
int n = 0;
atomic_t v;
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
#define LOOP 10000
void* foo(void *p)
{
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i < LOOP; i++) {
// pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
++n;
--n;
atomic_inc(&v);
atomic_dec(&v);
// pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
return NULL;
}
#define COUNT 50
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
pthread_t pids[COUNT];
pthread_attr_t attr;
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
atomic_set(&v, 0);
for(i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
pthread_create(&pids[i], &attr, foo, NULL);
}
for(i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
pthread_join(pids[i], NULL);
}
printf("%d\n", n);
printf("%d\n", v);
return 0;
}
Non-Atomic CPU InstructionsA memory operation can be non-atomic even when performed by a single CPU instruction. For example, the ARMv7 instruction set includes the strd instruction, which stores the contents of two 32-bit source registers to a single 64-bit value in memory.
Atomic means only one thread accesses the variable (static type). Atomic is thread-safe, but it is slow. Nonatomic means multiple threads access the variable (dynamic type). Nonatomic is thread-unsafe, but it is fast.
Atomic operations are sequences of instructions that guarantee atomic accesses and updates of shared single word variables. This means that atomic operations cannot protect accesses to complex data structures in the way that locks can, but they provide a very efficient way of serializing access to a single word.
Non atomic properties has no guarantee regarding the returned value. It can be the correct value, a partially written value or even some garbage value. As most things that are not safe — this comes with enhanced speed of accessing this properties.
You should use gcc built-ins instead (see. this) This works fine, and also works with icc.
int a;
__sync_fetch_and_add(&a, 1); // atomic a++
Note that you should be aware of the cache consistency issues when you modify variables without locking.
This old post implies that
So ... Perhaps that's the reason for the problems you're seeing?
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