NetBSD/share/man/man9/atomic_loadstore.9

.\"	$NetBSD: atomic_loadstore.9,v 1.6 2020/09/03 00:23:57 riastradh Exp $
.\"
.\" Copyright (c) 2019 The NetBSD Foundation
.\" All rights reserved.
.\"
.\" This code is derived from software contributed to The NetBSD Foundation
.\" by Taylor R. Campbell.
.\"
.\" Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
.\" modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
.\" are met:
.\" 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
.\"    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
.\" 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
.\"    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
.\"    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
.\"
.\" THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS
.\" ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
.\" TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
.\" PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR CONTRIBUTORS
.\" BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
.\" CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
.\" SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
.\" INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
.\" CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
.\" ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
.\" POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
.\"
.Dd November 25, 2019
.Dt ATOMIC_LOADSTORE 9
.Os
.Sh NAME
.Nm atomic_load_relaxed ,
.Nm atomic_load_acquire ,
.Nm atomic_load_consume ,
.Nm atomic_store_relaxed ,
.Nm atomic_store_release
.Nd atomic and ordered memory operations
.Sh SYNOPSIS
.In sys/atomic.h
.Ft T
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed "const volatile T *p"
.Ft T
.Fn atomic_load_acquire "const volatile T *p"
.Ft T
.Fn atomic_load_consume "const volatile T *p"
.Ft void
.Fn atomic_store_relaxed "volatile T *p" "T v"
.Ft void
.Fn atomic_store_release "volatile T *p" "T v"
.Sh DESCRIPTION
These type-generic macros implement memory operations that are
.Em atomic
and that have
.Em memory ordering constraints .
Aside from atomicity and ordering, the load operations are equivalent
to
.Li * Ns Fa p
and the store operations are equivalent to
.Li * Ns Fa p Li "=" Fa v .
The pointer
.Fa p
must be aligned, even on architectures like x86 which generally lack
strict alignment requirements; see
.Sx SIZE AND ALIGNMENT
for details.
.Pp
.Em Atomic
means that the memory operations cannot be
.Em fused
or
.Em torn :
.Bl -bullet
.It
.Em Fusing
is combining multiple memory operations on a single object into one
memory operation, such as replacing
.Bd -literal -compact
	*p = v;
	x = *p;
.Ed
by
.Bd -literal -compact
	*p = v;
	x = v;
.Ed
since the compiler can prove that
.Li \&*p
will yield
.Li v
after
.Li \&*p\ =\ v .
For
.Em atomic
memory operations, the implementation
.Em will not
assume that
.Bl -dash -compact
.It
consecutive loads of the same object will return the same value, or
.It
a store followed by a load of the same object will return the value
stored, or
.It
consecutive stores of the same object are redundant.
.El
Thus, the implementation will not replace two consecutive atomic loads
by one, will not elide an atomic load following a store, and will not
combine two consecutive atomic stores into one.
.Pp
For example,
.Bd -literal
	atomic_store_relaxed(&flag, 1);
	while (atomic_load_relaxed(&flag))
		continue;
.Ed
.Pp
may be used to set a flag and then busy-wait until another thread
clears it, whereas
.Bd -literal
	flag = 1;
	while (flag)
		continue;
.Ed
.Pp
may be transformed into the infinite loop
.Bd -literal
	flag = 1;
	while (1)
		continue;
.Ed
.It
.Em Tearing
is implementing a memory operation on a large data unit such as a
32-bit word by issuing multiple memory operations on smaller data units
such as 8-bit bytes.
The implementation will not tear
.Em atomic
loads or stores into smaller ones.
Thus, as far as any interrupt, other thread, or other CPU can tell, an
atomic memory operation is issued either all at once or not at all.
.Pp
For example, if a 32-bit word
.Va w
is written with
.Pp
.Dl atomic_store_relaxed(&w,\ 0x00010002);
.Pp
then an interrupt, other thread, or other CPU reading it with
.Li atomic_load_relaxed(&w)
will never witness it partially written, whereas
.Pp
.Dl w\ =\ 0x00010002;
.Pp
might be compiled into a pair of separate 16-bit store instructions
instead of one single word-sized store instruction, in which case other
threads may see the intermediate state with only one of the halves
written.
.El
.Pp
Atomic operations on any single object occur in a total order shared by
all interrupts, threads, and CPUs, which is consistent with the program
order in every interrupt, thread, and CPU.
A single program without interruption or other threads or CPUs will
always observe its own loads and stores in program order, but another
program in an interrupt handler, in another thread, or on another CPU
may issue loads that return values as if the first program's stores
occurred out of program order, and vice versa.
Two different threads might each observe a third thread's memory
operations in different orders.
.Pp
The
.Em memory ordering constraints
make limited guarantees of ordering relative to memory operations on
.Em other
objects as witnessed by interrupts, other threads, or other CPUs, and
have the following meanings:
.Bl -tag -width relaxed
.It relaxed
No ordering relative to memory operations on any other objects is
guaranteed.
Relaxed ordering is the default for ordinary non-atomic memory
operations like
.Li "*p"
and
.Li "*p = v" .
.Pp
Atomic operations with relaxed ordering are cheap: they are not
read/modify/write atomic operations, and they do not involve any kind
of inter-CPU ordering barriers.
.It acquire
This memory operation happens before all subsequent memory operations
in program order.
However, prior memory operations in program order may be reordered to
happen after this one.
For example, assuming no aliasing between the pointers, the
implementation is allowed to treat
.Bd -literal
	int x = *p;
	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
		int y = *r;
		*s = x + y;
		return 1;
	}
.Ed
.Pp
as if it were
.Bd -literal
	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
		int x = *p;
		int y = *r;
		*s = x + y;
		return 1;
	}
.Ed
.Pp
but
.Em not
as if it were
.Bd -literal
	int x = *p;
	int y = *r;
	*s = x + y;
	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
		return 1;
	}
.Ed
.It consume
This memory operation happens before all memory operations on objects
at addresses that are computed from the value returned by this one.
Otherwise, no ordering relative to memory operations on other objects
is implied.
.Pp
For example, the implementation is allowed to treat
.Bd -literal
	struct foo *foo0, *foo1;

	struct foo *f0 = atomic_load_consume(&foo0);
	struct foo *f1 = atomic_load_consume(&foo1);
	int x = f0->x;
	int y = f1->y;
.Ed
.Pp
as if it were
.Bd -literal
	struct foo *foo0, *foo1;

	struct foo *f1 = atomic_load_consume(&foo1);
	struct foo *f0 = atomic_load_consume(&foo0);
	int y = f1->y;
	int x = f0->x;
.Ed
.Pp
but loading
.Li f0->x
is guaranteed to happen after loading
.Li foo0
even if the CPU had a cached value for the address that
.Li f0->x
happened to be at, and likewise for
.Li f1->y
and
.Li foo1 .
.Pp
.Fn atomic_load_consume
functions like
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
as long as the memory operations that must happen after it are limited
to addresses that depend on the value returned by it, but it is almost
always as cheap as
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed .
See
.Sx ACQUIRE OR CONSUME?
below for more details.
.It release
All prior memory operations in program order happen before this one.
However, subsequent memory operations in program order may be reordered
to happen before this one too.
For example, assuming no aliasing between the pointers, the
implementation is allowed to treat
.Bd -literal
	int x = *p;
	*q = x;
	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
	int y = *s;
	return x + y;
.Ed
.Pp
as if it were
.Bd -literal
	int y = *s;
	int x = *p;
	*q = x;
	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
	return x + y;
.Ed
.Pp
but
.Em not
as if it were
.Bd -literal
	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
	int x = *p;
	int y = *s;
	*q = x;
	return x + y;
.Ed
.El
.Ss PAIRING ORDERED MEMORY OPERATIONS
In general, each
.Fn atomic_store_release
.Em must
be paired with either
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
or
.Fn atomic_load_consume
in order to have an effect \(em it is only when a release operation
synchronizes with an acquire or consume operation that any ordering
guaranteed between memory operations
.Em before
the release operation and memory operations
.Em after
the acquire/consume operation.
.Pp
For example, to set up an entry in a table and then mark the entry
ready, you should:
.Bl -enum
.It
Perform memory operations to initialize the data.
.Bd -literal
	tab[i].x = ...;
	tab[i].y = ...;
.Ed
.It
Issue
.Fn atomic_store_release
to mark it ready.
.Bd -literal
	atomic_store_release(&tab[i].ready, 1);
.Ed
.It
Possibly in another thread, issue
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
to ascertain whether it is ready.
.Bd -literal
	if (atomic_load_acquire(&tab[i].ready) == 0)
		return EWOULDBLOCK;
.Ed
.It
Perform memory operations to use the data.
.Bd -literal
	do_stuff(tab[i].x, tab[i].y);
.Ed
.El
.Pp
Similarly, if you want to create an object, initialize it, and then
publish it to be used by another thread, then you should:
.Bl -enum
.It
Perform memory operations to initialize the object.
.Bd -literal
	struct mumble *m = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*m), KM_SLEEP);
	m->x = x;
	m->y = y;
	m->z = m->x + m->y;
.Ed
.It
Issue
.Fn atomic_store_release
to publish it.
.Bd -literal
	atomic_store_release(&the_mumble, m);
.Ed
.It
Possibly in another thread, issue
.Fn atomic_load_consume
to get it.
.Bd -literal
	struct mumble *m = atomic_load_consume(&the_mumble);
.Ed
.It
Perform memory operations to use the object's members.
.Bd -literal
	m->y &= m->x;
	do_things(m->x, m->y, m->z);
.Ed
.El
.Pp
In both examples, assuming that the value written by
.Fn atomic_store_release
in step\~2
is read by
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
or
.Fn atomic_load_consume
in step\~3, this guarantees that all of the memory operations in
step\~1 complete before any of the memory operations in step\~4 \(em
even if they happen on different CPUs.
.Pp
Without
.Em both
the release operation in step\~2
.Em and
the acquire or consume operation in step\~3, no ordering is guaranteed
between the memory operations in steps\~1 and\~4.
In fact, without
.Em both
release and acquire/consume, even the assignment
.Li m->z\ =\ m->x\ +\ m->y
in step\~1 might read values of
.Li m->x
and
.Li m->y
that were written in step\~4.
.Ss ACQUIRE OR CONSUME?
You must use
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
when subsequent memory operations in program order that must happen
after the load are on objects at
.Em addresses that might not depend arithmetically on the resulting value .
This applies particularly when the choice of whether to do the
subsequent memory operation depends on a
.Em control-flow decision based on the resulting value :
.Bd -literal
	struct gadget {
		int ready, x;
	} the_gadget;

	/* Producer */
	the_gadget.x = 42;
	atomic_store_release(&the_gadget.ready, 1);

	/* Consumer */
	if (atomic_load_acquire(&the_gadget.ready) == 0)
		return EWOULDBLOCK;
	int x = the_gadget.x;
.Ed
.Pp
Here the
.Em decision of whether to load
.Li the_gadget.x
depends on a control-flow decision depending on value loaded from
.Li the_gadget.ready ,
and loading
.Li the_gadget.x
must happen after loading
.Li the_gadget.ready .
Using
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
guarantees that the compiler and CPU do not conspire to load
.Li the_gadget.x
before we have ascertained that it is ready.
.Pp
You may use
.Fn atomic_load_consume
if all subsequent memory operations in program order that must happen
after the load are performed on objects at
.Em addresses computed arithmetically from the resulting value ,
such as loading a pointer to a structure object and then dereferencing
it:
.Bd -literal
	struct gizmo {
		int x, y, z;
	};
	struct gizmo null_gizmo;
	struct gizmo *the_gizmo = &null_gizmo;

	/* Producer */
	struct gizmo *g = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*g), KM_SLEEP);
	g->x = 12;
	g->y = 34;
	g->z = 56;
	atomic_store_release(&the_gizmo, g);

	/* Consumer */
	struct gizmo *g = atomic_load_consume(&the_gizmo);
	int y = g->y;
.Ed
.Pp
Here the
.Em address
of
.Li g->y
depends on the value of the pointer loaded from
.Li the_gizmo .
Using
.Fn atomic_load_consume
guarantees that we do not witness a stale cache for that address.
.Pp
In some cases it may be unclear.
For example:
.Bd -literal
	int x[2];
	bool b;

	/* Producer */
	x[0] = 42;
	atomic_store_release(&b, 0);

	/* Consumer 1 */
	int y = atomic_load_???(&b) ? x[0] : x[1];

	/* Consumer 2 */
	int y = x[atomic_load_???(&b) ? 0 : 1];

	/* Consumer 3 */
	int y = x[atomic_load_???(&b) ^ 1];
.Ed
.Pp
Although the three consumers seem to be equivalent, by the letter of
C11 consumers\~1 and\~2 require
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
because the value determines the address of a subsequent load only via
control-flow decisions in the
.Li ?:
operator, whereas consumer\~3 can use
.Fn atomic_load_consume .
However, if you're not sure, you should err on the side of
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
until C11 implementations have ironed out the kinks in the semantics.
.Pp
On all CPUs other than DEC Alpha,
.Fn atomic_load_consume
is cheap \(em it is identical to
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed .
In contrast,
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
usually implies an expensive memory barrier.
.Ss SIZE AND ALIGNMENT
The pointer
.Fa p
must be aligned \(em that is, if the object it points to is
.\"
2\c
.ie t \s-2\v'-0.4m'n\v'+0.4m'\s+2
.el ^n
.\"
bytes long, then the low-order
.Ar n
bits of
.Fa p
must be zero.
.Pp
All
.Nx
ports support atomic loads and stores on units of data up to 32 bits.
Some ports additionally support atomic loads and stores on larger
quantities, like 64-bit quantities, if
.Dv __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
is defined.
The macros are not allowed on larger quantities of data than the port
supports atomically; attempts to use them for such quantities should
result in a compile-time assertion failure.
.Pp
For example, as long as you use
.Fn atomic_store_*
to write a 32-bit quantity, you can safely use
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed
to optimistically read it outside a lock, but for a 64-bit quantity it
must be conditional on
.Dv __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
\(em otherwise it will lead to compile-time errors on platforms without
64-bit atomic loads and stores:
.Bd -literal
	struct foo {
		kmutex_t	f_lock;
		uint32_t	f_refcnt;
		uint64_t	f_ticket;
	};

	if (atomic_load_relaxed(&foo->f_refcnt) == 0)
		return 123;
#ifdef __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
	if (atomic_load_relaxed(&foo->f_ticket) == ticket)
		return 123;
#endif
	mutex_enter(&foo->f_lock);
	if (foo->f_refcnt == 0 || foo->f_ticket == ticket)
		ret = 123;
	...
#ifdef __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
	atomic_store_relaxed(&foo->f_ticket, foo->f_ticket + 1);
#else
	foo->f_ticket++;
#endif
	...
	mutex_exit(&foo->f_lock);
.Ed
.Sh C11 COMPATIBILITY
These macros are meant to follow
.Tn C11
semantics, in terms of
.Li atomic_load_explicit()
and
.Li atomic_store_explicit()
with the appropriate memory order specifiers, and are meant to make
future adoption of the
.Tn C11
atomic API easier.
Eventually it may be mandatory to use the
.Tn C11
.Vt _Atomic
type qualifier or equivalent for the operands.
.Sh LINUX ANALOGUES
The Linux kernel provides two macros
.Li READ_ONCE(x)
and
.Li WRITE_ONCE(x,\ v)
which are similar to
.Li atomic_load_consume(&x)
and
.Li atomic_store_relaxed(&x,\ v) ,
respectively.
However, while Linux's
.Li READ_ONCE
and
.Li WRITE_ONCE
prevent fusing, they may in some cases be torn \(em and therefore fail
to guarantee atomicity \(em because:
.Bl -bullet
.It
They do not require the address
.Li "&x"
to be aligned.
.It
They do not require
.Li sizeof(x)
to be at most the largest size of available atomic loads and stores on
the host architecture.
.El
.Sh MEMORY BARRIERS AND ATOMIC READ/MODIFY/WRITE
The atomic read/modify/write operations in
.Xr atomic_ops 3
have relaxed ordering by default, but can be combined with the memory
barriers in
.Xr membar_ops 3
for the same effect as an acquire operation and a release operation for
the purposes of pairing with
.Fn atomic_store_release
and
.Fn atomic_load_acquire
or
.Fn atomic_load_consume .
If
.Li atomic_r/m/w()
is an atomic read/modify/write operation in
.Xr atomic_ops 3 ,
then
.Bd -literal
	membar_exit();
	atomic_r/m/w(obj, ...);
.Ed
.Pp
functions like a release operation on
.Va obj ,
and
.Bd -literal
	atomic_r/m/w(obj, ...);
	membar_enter();
.Ed
.Pp
functions like a acquire operation on
.Va obj .
.Pp
.Sy WARNING :
The combination of
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed
and
.Xr membar_enter 3
.Em does not
make an acquire operation; only read/modify/write atomics may be
combined with
.Xr membar_enter 3
this way.
.Pp
On architectures where
.Dv __HAVE_ATOMIC_AS_MEMBAR
is defined, all the
.Xr atomic_ops 3
imply release and acquire operations, so the
.Xr membar_enter 3
and
.Xr membar_exit 3
are redundant.
.Sh EXAMPLES
Maintaining lossy counters.
These may lose some counts, because the read/modify/write cycle as a
whole is not atomic.
But this guarantees that the count will increase by at most one each
time.
In contrast, without atomic operations, in principle a write to a
32-bit counter might be torn into multiple smaller stores, which could
appear to happen out of order from another CPU's perspective, leading
to nonsensical counter readouts.
(For frequent events, consider using per-CPU counters instead in
practice.)
.Bd -literal
	unsigned count;

	void
	record_event(void)
	{
		atomic_store_relaxed(&count,
		    1 + atomic_load_relaxed(&count));
	}

	unsigned
	read_event_count(void)
	{
		return atomic_load_relaxed(&count);
	}
.Ed
.Pp
Initialization barrier.
.Bd -literal
	int ready;
	struct data d;

	void
	setup_and_notify(void)
	{
		setup_data(&d.things);
		atomic_store_release(&ready, 1);
	}

	void
	try_if_ready(void)
	{
		if (atomic_load_acquire(&ready))
			do_stuff(d.things);
	}
.Ed
.Pp
Publishing a pointer to the current snapshot of data.
(Caller must arrange that only one call to
.Li take_snapshot()
happens at any
given time; generally this should be done in coordination with
.Xr pserialize 9
or similar to enable resource reclamation.)
.Bd -literal
	struct data *current_d;

	void
	take_snapshot(void)
        {
		struct data *d = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*d));

		d->things = ...;

		atomic_store_release(&current_d, d);
	}

	struct data *
	get_snapshot(void)
	{
		return atomic_load_consume(&current_d);
	}
.Ed
.Sh CODE REFERENCES
.Pa sys/sys/atomic.h
.Sh SEE ALSO
.Xr atomic_ops 3 ,
.Xr membar_ops 3 ,
.Xr pserialize 9
.Sh HISTORY
These atomic operations first appeared in
.Nx 9.0 .
.Sh CAVEATS
C11 formally specifies that all subexpressions, except the left
operands of the
.Ql && ,
.Ql || ,
.Ql ?: ,
and
.Ql \&,
operators and the
.Li kill_dependency()
macro, carry dependencies for which
.Dv memory_order_consume
guarantees ordering, but most or all implementations to date simply
treat
.Dv memory_order_consume
as
.Dv memory_order_acquire
and do not take advantage of data dependencies to elide costly memory
barriers or load-acquire CPU instructions.
.Pp
Instead, we implement
.Fn atomic_load_consume
as
.Fn atomic_load_relaxed
followed by
.Xr membar_datadep_consumer 3 ,
which is equivalent to
.Xr membar_consumer 3
on DEC Alpha and
.Xr __insn_barrier 3
elsewhere.
.Sh BUGS
Some idiot decided to call it
.Em tearing ,
depriving us of the opportunity to say that atomic operations prevent
fusion and
.Em fission .