GCC offers a nice set of built-in functions for atomic operations. And being on MacOS or iOS, even Apple offers a nice set of atomic functions. However, all these functions perform an operation, e.g. an addition/subtraction, a logical operation (AND/OR/XOR) or a compare-and-set/compare-and-swap. What I am looking for is a way to atomically assign/read an int value, like:
int a;
/* ... */
a = someVariable;
That's all. a will be read by another thread and it is only important that a either has its old value or its new value. Unfortunately the C standard does not guarantee that assigning or reading a value is an atomic operation. I remember that I once read somewhere, that writing or reading a value to a variable of type int is guaranteed to be atomic in GCC (regardless the size of int) but I searched everywhere on the GCC homepage and I cannot find this statement any longer (maybe it was removed).
I cannot use sig_atomic_t because sig_atomic_t has no guaranteed size and it might also have a different size than int.
Since only one thread will ever "write" a value to a, while both threads will "read" the current value of a, I don't need to perform the operations themselves in an atomic manner, e.g.:
/* thread 1 */
someVariable = atomicRead(a);
/* Do something with someVariable, non-atomic, when done */
atomicWrite(a, someVariable);
/* thread 2 */
someVariable = atomicRead(a);
/* Do something with someVariable, but never write to a */
If both threads were going to write to a, then all operations would have to be atomic, but that way, this may only waste CPU time; and we are extremely low on CPU resources in our project. So far we use a mutex around read/write operations of a and even though the mutex is held for such a tiny amount of time, this already causes problems (one of the threads is a realtime thread and blocking on a mutex causes it to fail its realtime constraints, which is pretty bad).
Of course I could use a __sync_fetch_and_add to read the variable (and simply add "0" to it, to not modify its value) and for writing use a __sync_val_compare_and_swap for writing it (as I know its old value, so passing that in will make sure the value is always exchanged), but won't this add unnecessary overhead?
A __sync_fetch_and_add with a 0 argument is indeed the best bet if you want your load to be atomic and act as a memory barrier. Similarly, you can use an and with 0 or an or with -1 to store 0 and -1 atomically with a memory barrier. For writing, you can use __sync_test_and_set (actually an xchg operation) if an "acquire" barrier is enough, or if using Clang you can use __sync_swap (which is an xchg operation with a full barrier).
However, in many cases that's overkill and you may prefer to add memory barriers manually. If you do not want the memory barrier, you can use a volatile load to atomically read/write a variable that is aligned and no wider than a word:
#define __sync_access(x) (*(volatile __typeof__(x) *) &(x))
(This macro is an lvalue, so you can also use it for a store like __sync_store(x) = 0). The function implements the same semantics as the C++11 memory_order_consume form, but only under two assumptions:
that your machine has coherent caches; if not, you need a memory barrier or global cache flush before the load (or before the first of a group of load).
that your machine is not a DEC Alpha. The Alpha had very relaxed semantics for reordering memory accesses, so on it you'd need a memory barrier after the load (and after each load in a group of loads). On the Alpha the above macro only provides memory_order_relaxed semantics. BTW, the first versions of the Alpha couldn't even store a byte atomically (only a word, which was 8 bytes).
In either case, the __sync_fetch_and_add would work. As far as I know, no other machine imitated the Alpha so neither assumption should pose problems on current computers.
Volatile, aligned, word sized reads/writes are atomic on most platforms. Checking your assembly would be the best way to find out if this is true on your platform. Atomic registers cannot produce nearly as many interesting wait free structures as the more complicated mechanisms like compare and swap, which is why they are included.
See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.56.5659&rank=3 for the theory.
Regarding synch_fetch_and_add with a 0 argument - This seems like the safest bet. If you're worried about efficiency, profile the code and see if you're meeting your performance targets. You may be falling victim to premature optimization.
Related
I've noticed that booleans occupy a whole byte, despite only needing 1 bit. I was wondering whether we could have something like
struct smartbool{char data;}
, which would store 8 booleans at once.
I am aware that it would take more time to retrieve data, although would the tradeoff be a practical application in some scenarios?
Am I missing something about the memory usage of booleans?
Normally variables are aligned on word boundaries, memory use is balanced against efficiency of access. For one-off boolean variables it may not make sense to store them in a denser form.
If you do need a bunch of booleans you can use things like this BitSet data structure: https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/12/docs/api/java.base/java/util/BitSet.html.
There is a type of database index that stores booleans efficiently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap_index. The less space an index takes up the easier it is to keep in memory.
There are already widely used data types that support multiple booleans, they are called integers. you can store and retrieve multiple booleans in an integral type, using bitwise operations, screening out the bits you don't care about with a pattern of bits called a bitmask.
This sort of "packing" is certainly possible and sometimes useful, as a memory-saving optimization. Many languages and libraries provide a way to make it convenient, e.g. std::vector<bool> in C++ is meant to be implemented this way.
However, it should be done only when the programmer knows it will happen and specifically wants it. There is a tradeoff in speed: if bits are used, then setting / clearing / testing a specific bool requires first computing a mask with an appropriate shift, and setting or clearing it now requires a read-modify-write instead of just a write.
And there is a more serious issue in multithreaded programs. Languages like C++ promise that different threads can freely modify different objects, including different elements of the same array, without needing synchronization or causing a data race. For instance, if we have
bool a, b; // not atomic
void thread1() { /* reads and writes a */ }
void thread2() { /* reads and writes b */ }
then this is supposed to work fine. But if the compiler made a and b two different bits in the same byte, concurrent accesses to them would be a data race on that byte, and could cause incorrect behavior (e.g. if the read-modify-writes being done by the two threads were interleaved). The only way to make it safe would be to require that both threads use atomic operations for all their accesses, which are typically many times slower. And if the compiler could freely pack bools in this way, then every operation on a potentially shared bool would have to be made atomic, throughout the entire program. That would be prohibitively expensive.
So this is fine if the programmer wants to pack bools to save memory, is willing to take the hit to speed, and can guarantee that they won't be accessed concurrently. But they should be aware that it's happening, and have control over whether it does.
(Indeed, some people feel that having C++ provide this with vector<bool> was a mistake, since programmers have to know that it is a special exception to the otherwise general rule that vector<T> behaves like an array of T, and different elements of the vector can safely be accessed concurrently. Perhaps they should have left vector<bool> to work in the naive way, and given a different name to the packed version, similar to std::bitset.)
I want to run an instrumented OpenCL kernel to get some execution metrics. More specifically, I have added a hidden global buffer which will be initialized from the host code with N zeros. Each of the N values are integers and they represent a different metric, which each kernel instance will increment in a different manner, depending on its execution path.
A simplistic example:
__kernel void test(__global int *a, __global int *hiddenCounter) {
if (get_global_id(0) == 0) {
// do stuff and then increment the appropriate counter (random numbers here)
hiddenCounter[0] += 3;
}
else {
// do stuff...
hiddenCounter[1] += 5;
}
}
After the kernel execution is complete, I need the host code to aggregate (a simple element-wise vector addition) all the hiddenCounter buffers and print the appropriate results.
My question is whether there are race conditions when multiple kernel instances try to write to the same index of the hiddenCounter buffer (which will definitely happen in my project). Do I need to enforce some kind of synchronization? Or is this impossible with __global arguments and I need to change it to __private? Will I be able to aggregate __private buffers from the host code afterwards?
My question is whether there are race conditions when multiple kernel instances try to write to the same index of the hiddenCounter buffer
The answer to this is emphatically yes, your code will be vulnerable to race conditions as currently written.
Do I need to enforce some kind of synchronization?
Yes, you can use global atomics for this purpose. All but the most ancient GPUs will support this. (anything supporting OpenCL 1.2, or cl_khr_global_int32_base_atomics and similar extensions)
Note that this will have a non-trivial performance overhead. Depending on your access patterns and frequency, collecting intermediate results in private or local memory and writing them out to global memory at the end of the kernel may be faster. (In the local case, the whole work group would share just one global atomic call for each updated cell - you'll need to use local atomics or a reduction algorithm to accumulate the values from individual work items across the group though.)
Another option is to use a much larger global memory buffer, with counters for each work item or group. In that case, you will not need atomics to write to them, but you will subsequently need to combine the values on the host. This uses much more memory, obviously, and likely more memory bandwidth too - modern GPUs should cache accesses to your small hiddenCounter buffer. So you'll need to work out/try which is the lesser evil in your case.
I am quite new to CUDA programming and there are some stuff about the memory model that are quite unclear to me. Like, how does it work? For example if I have a simple kernel
__global__ void kernel(const int* a, int* b){
some computation where different threads in different blocks might
write at the same index of b
}
So I imagine a will be in the so-called constant memory. But what about b? Since different threads in different blocks will write in it, how will it work? I read somewhere that it was guaranteed that in the case of concurrent writes in global memory by different threads in the same block at least one would be written, but there's no guarantee about the others. Do I need to worry about that, ie for example have every thread in a block write in shared memory and once they are all done, have one write it all to the global memory? Or is CUDA taking care of it for me?
So I imagine a will be in the so-called constant memory.
Yes, a the pointer will be in constant memory, but not because it is marked const (this is completely orthogonal). b the pointer is also in constant memory. All kernel arguments are passed in constant memory (except in CC 1.x). The memory pointed-to by a and b could, in theory, be anything (device global memory, host pinned memory, anything addressable by UVA, I believe). Where it resides is chosen by you, the user.
I read somewhere that it was guaranteed that in the case of concurrent writes in global memory by different threads in the same block at least one would be written, but there's no guarantee about the others.
Assuming your code looks like this:
b[0] = 10; // Executed by all threads
Then yes, that's a (benign) race condition, because all threads write the same value to the same location. The result of the write is defined, however the number of writes is unspecified and so is the thread that does the "final" write. The only guarantee is that at least one write happens. In practice, I believe one write per warp is issued, which is a waste of bandwidth if your blocks contain more than one warp (which they should).
On the other hand, if your code looks like this:
b[0] = threadIdx.x;
This is plain undefined behavior.
Do I need to worry about that, ie for example have every thread in a block write in shared memory and once they are all done, have one write it all to the global memory?
Yes, that's how it's usually done.
As i know, volatile is usually used to prevent unexpected compile optimization during some hardware operations. But which scenes volatile should be declared in property definition puzzles me. Please give some representative examples.
Thx.
A compiler assumes that the only way a variable can change its value is through code that changes it.
int a = 24;
Now the compiler assumes that a is 24 until it sees any statement that changes the value of a. If you write code somewhere below above statement that says
int b = a + 3;
the compiler will say "I know what a is, it's 24! So b is 27. I don't have to write code to perform that calculation, I know that it will always be 27". The compiler may just optimize the whole calculation away.
But the compiler would be wrong in case a has changed between the assignment and the calculation. However, why would a do that? Why would a suddenly have a different value? It won't.
If a is a stack variable, it cannot change value, unless you pass a reference to it, e.g.
doSomething(&a);
The function doSomething has a pointer to a, which means it can change the value of a and after that line of code, a may not be 24 any longer. So if you write
int a = 24;
doSomething(&a);
int b = a + 3;
the compiler will not optimize the calculation away. Who knows what value a will have after doSomething? The compiler for sure doesn't.
Things get more tricky with global variables or instance variables of objects. These variables are not on stack, they are on heap and that means that different threads can have access to them.
// Global Scope
int a = 0;
void function ( ) {
a = 24;
b = a + 3;
}
Will b be 27? Most likely the answer is yes, but there is a tiny chance that some other thread has changed the value of a between these two lines of code and then it won't be 27. Does the compiler care? No. Why? Because C doesn't know anything about threads - at least it didn't used to (the latest C standard finally knows native threads, but all thread functionality before that was only API provided by the operating system and not native to C). So a C compiler will still assume that b is 27 and optimize the calculation away, which may lead to incorrect results.
And that's what volatile is good for. If you tag a variable volatile like that
volatile int a = 0;
you are basically telling the compiler: "The value of a may change at any time. No seriously, it may change out of the blue. You don't see it coming and *bang*, it has a different value!". For the compiler that means it must not assume that a has a certain value just because it used to have that value 1 pico-second ago and there was no code that seemed to have changed it. Doesn't matter. When accessing a, always read its current value.
Overuse of volatile prevents a lot of compiler optimizations, may slow down calculation code dramatically and very often people use volatile in situations where it isn't even necessary. For example, the compiler never makes value assumptions across memory barriers. What exactly a memory barrier is? Well, that's a bit far beyond the scope of my reply. You just need to know that typical synchronization constructs are memory barriers, e.g. locks, mutexes or semaphores, etc. Consider this code:
// Global Scope
int a = 0;
void function ( ) {
a = 24;
pthread_mutex_lock(m);
b = a + 3;
pthread_mutex_unlock(m);
}
pthread_mutex_lock is a memory barrier (pthread_mutex_unlock as well, by the way) and thus it's not necessary to declare a as volatile, the compiler will not make an assumption of the value of a across a memory barrier, never.
Objective-C is pretty much like C in all these aspects, after all it's just a C with extensions and a runtime. One thing to note is that atomic properties in Obj-C are memory barriers, so you don't need to declare properties volatile. If you access the property from multiple threads, declare it atomic, which is even default by the way (if you don't mark it nonatomic, it will be atomic). If you never access it from multiple thread, tagging it nonatomic will make access to that property a lot faster, but that only pays off if you access the property really a lot (a lot doesn't mean ten times a minute, it's rather several thousand times a second).
So you want Obj-C code, that requires volatile?
#implementation SomeObject {
volatile bool done;
}
- (void)someMethod {
done = false;
// Start some background task that performes an action
// and when it is done with that action, it sets `done` to true.
// ...
// Wait till the background task is done
while (!done) {
// Run the runloop for 10 ms, then check again
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop]
runUntilDate:[NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSinceNow:0.01]
];
}
}
#end
Without volatile, the compiler may be dumb enough to assume, that done will never change here and replace !done simply with true. And while (true) is an endless loop that will never terminate.
I haven't tested that with modern compilers. Maybe the current version of clang is more intelligent than that. It may also depend on how you start the background task. If you dispatch a block, the compiler can actually easily see whether it changes done or not. If you pass a reference to done somewhere, the compiler knows that the receiver may the value of done and will not make any assumptions. But I tested exactly that code a long time ago when Apple was still using GCC 2.x and there not using volatile really caused an endless loop that never terminated (yet only in release builds with optimizations enabled, not in debug builds). So I would not rely on the compiler being clever enough to do it right.
Just some more fun facts about memory barriers:
If you ever had a look at the atomic operations that Apple offers in <libkern/OSAtomic.h>, then you might have wondered why every operation exists twice: Once as x and once as xBarrier (e.g. OSAtomicAdd32 and OSAtomicAdd32Barrier). Well, now you finally know it. The one with "Barrier" in its name is a memory barrier, the other one isn't.
Memory barriers are not just for compilers, they are also for CPUs (there exists CPU instructions, that are considered memory barriers while normal instructions are not). The CPU needs to know these barriers because CPUs like to reorder instructions to perform operations out of order. E.g. if you do
a = x + 3 // (1)
b = y * 5 // (2)
c = a + b // (3)
and the pipeline for additions is busy, but the pipeline for multiplication is not, the CPU may perform instruction (2) before (1), after all the order won't matter in the end. This prevents a pipeline stall. Also the CPU is clever enough to know that it cannot perform (3) before either (1) or (2) because the result of (3) depends on the results of the other two calculations.
Yet, certain kinds of order changes will break the code, or the intention of the programmer. Consider this example:
x = y + z // (1)
a = 1 // (2)
The addition pipe might be busy, so why not just perform (2) before (1)? They don't depend on each other, the order shouldn't matter, right? Well, it depends. Consider another thread monitors a for changes and as soon as a becomes 1, it reads the value of x, which should now be y+z if the instructions were performed in order. Yet if the CPU reordered them, then x will have whatever value it used to have before getting to this code and this makes a difference as the other thread will now work with a different value, not the value the programmer would have expected.
So in this case the order will matter and that's why barriers are needed also for CPUs: CPUs don't order instructions across such barriers and thus instruction (2) would need to be a barrier instruction (or there needs to be such an instruction between (1) and (2); that depends on the CPU). However, reordering instructions is only performed by modern CPUs, a much older problem are delayed memory writes. If a CPU delays memory writes (very common for some CPUs, as memory access is horribly slow for a CPU), it will make sure that all delayed writes are performed and have completed before a memory barrier is crossed, so all memory is in a correct state in case another thread might now access it (and now you also know where the name "memory barrier" actually comes from).
You are probably working a lot more with memory barriers than you are even aware of (GCD - Grand Central Dispatch is full of these and NSOperation/NSOperationQueue bases on GCD), that's why your really need to use volatile only in very rare, exceptional cases. You might get away writing 100 apps and never have to use it even once. However, if you write a lot low level, multi-threading code that aims to achieve maximum performance possible, you will sooner or later run into a situation where only volatile can grantee you correct behavior; not using it in such a situation will lead to strange bugs where loops don't seem to terminate or variables simply seem to have incorrect values and you find no explanation for that. If you run into bugs like these, especially if you only see them in release builds, you might miss a volatile or a memory barrier somewhere in your code.
A good explanation is given here: Understanding “volatile” qualifier in C
The volatile keyword is intended to prevent the compiler from applying any optimizations on objects that can change in ways that cannot be determined by the compiler.
Objects declared as volatile are omitted from optimization because their values can be changed by code outside the scope of current code at any time. The system always reads the current value of a volatile object from the memory location rather than keeping its value in temporary register at the point it is requested, even if a previous instruction asked for a value from the same object. So the simple question is, how can value of a variable change in such a way that compiler cannot predict. Consider the following cases for answer to this question.
1) Global variables modified by an interrupt service routine outside the scope: For example, a global variable can represent a data port (usually global pointer referred as memory mapped IO) which will be updated dynamically. The code reading data port must be declared as volatile in order to fetch latest data available at the port. Failing to declare variable as volatile, the compiler will optimize the code in such a way that it will read the port only once and keeps using the same value in a temporary register to speed up the program (speed optimization). In general, an ISR used to update these data port when there is an interrupt due to availability of new data
2) Global variables within a multi-threaded application: There are multiple ways for threads communication, viz, message passing, shared memory, mail boxes, etc. A global variable is weak form of shared memory. When two threads sharing information via global variable, they need to be qualified with volatile. Since threads run asynchronously, any update of global variable due to one thread should be fetched freshly by another consumer thread. Compiler can read the global variable and can place them in temporary variable of current thread context. To nullify the effect of compiler optimizations, such global variables to be qualified as volatile
If we do not use volatile qualifier, the following problems may arise
1) Code may not work as expected when optimization is turned on.
2) Code may not work as expected when interrupts are enabled and used.
volatile comes from C. Type "C language volatile" into your favourite search engine (some of the results will probably come from SO), or read a book on C programming. There are plenty of examples out there.
I need to be extremely concerned with speed/latency in my current multi-threaded project.
Cache access is something I'm trying to understand better. And I'm not clear on how lock-free queues (such as the boost::lockfree::spsc_queue) access/use memory on a cache level.
I've seen queues used where the pointer of a large object that needs to be operated on by the consumer core is pushed into the queue.
If the consumer core pops an element from the queue, I presume that means the element (a pointer in this case) is already loaded into the consumer core's L2 and L1 cache. But to access the element, does it not need to access the pointer itself by finding and loading the element either from either the L3 cache or across the interconnect (if the other thread is on a different cpu socket)? If so, would it maybe be better to simply send a copy of the object that could be disposed of by the consumer?
Thank you.
C++ principally a pay-for-what-you-need eco-system.
Any regular queue will let you choose the storage semantics (by value or by reference).
However, this time you ordered something special: you ordered a lock free queue.
In order to be lock free, it must be able to perform all the observable modifying operations as atomic operations. This naturally restricts the types that can be used in these operations directly.
You might doubt whether it's even possible to have a value-type that exceeds the system's native register size (say, int64_t).
Good question.
Enter Ringbuffers
Indeed, any node based container would just require pointer swaps for all modifying operations, which is trivially made atomic on all modern architectures.
But does anything that involves copying multiple distinct memory areas, in non-atomic sequence, really pose an unsolvable problem?
No. Imagine a flat array of POD data items. Now, if you treat the array as a circular buffer, one would just have to maintain the index of the buffer front and end positions atomically. The container could, at leisure update in internal 'dirty front index' while it copies ahead of the external front. (The copy can use relaxed memory ordering). Only as soon as the whole copy is known to have completed, the external front index is updated. This update needs to be in acq_rel/cst memory order[1].
As long as the container is able to guard the invariant that the front never fully wraps around and reaches back, this is a sweet deal. I think this idea was popularized in the Disruptor Library (of LMAX fame). You get mechanical resonance from
linear memory access patterns while reading/writing
even better if you can make the record size aligned with (a multiple) physical cache lines
all the data is local unless the POD contains raw references outside that record
How Does Boost's spsc_queue Actually Do This?
Yes, spqc_queue stores the raw element values in a contiguous aligned block of memory: (e.g. from compile_time_sized_ringbuffer which underlies spsc_queue with statically supplied maximum capacity:)
typedef typename boost::aligned_storage<max_size * sizeof(T),
boost::alignment_of<T>::value
>::type storage_type;
storage_type storage_;
T * data()
{
return static_cast<T*>(storage_.address());
}
(The element type T need not even be POD, but it needs to be both default-constructible and copyable).
Yes, the read and write pointers are atomic integral values. Note that the boost devs have taken care to apply enough padding to avoid False Sharing on the cache line for the reading/writing indices: (from ringbuffer_base):
static const int padding_size = BOOST_LOCKFREE_CACHELINE_BYTES - sizeof(size_t);
atomic<size_t> write_index_;
char padding1[padding_size]; /* force read_index and write_index to different cache lines */
atomic<size_t> read_index_;
In fact, as you can see, there are only the "internal" index on either read or write side. This is possible because there's only one writing thread and also only one reading thread, which means that there could only be more space at the end of write operation than anticipated.
Several other optimizations are present:
branch prediction hints for platforms that support it (unlikely())
it's possible to push/pop a range of elements at once. This should improve throughput in case you need to siphon from one buffer/ringbuffer into another, especially if the raw element size is not equal to (a whole multiple of) a cacheline
use of std::unitialized_copy where possible
The calling of trivial constructors/destructors will be optimized out at instantiation time
the unitialized_copy will be optimized into memcpy on all major standard library implementations (meaning that e.g. SSE instructions will be employed if your architecture supports it)
All in all, we see a best-in-class possible idea for a ringbuffer
What To Use
Boost has given you all the options. You can elect to make your element type a pointer to your message type. However, as you already raised in your question, this level of indirection reduces locality of reference and might not be optimal.
On the other hand, storing the complete message type in the element type could become expensive if copying is expensive. At the very least try to make the element type fit nicely into a cache line (typically 64 bytes on Intel).
So in practice you might consider storing frequently used data right there in the value, and referencing the less-of-used data using a pointer (the cost of the pointer will be low unless it's traversed).
If you need that "attachment" model, consider using a custom allocator for the referred-to data so you can achieve memory access patterns there too.
Let your profiler guide you.
[1] I suppose say for spsc acq_rel should work, but I'm a bit rusty on the details. As a rule, I make it a point not to write lock-free code myself. I recommend anyone else to follow my example :)