From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 7796E3858C30; Thu,  1 Jun 2023 01:40:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7796E3858C30
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685583649;
	bh=N3ceSon8l6N/nRgfa7owbfk2OJiAvrxijdmLjHOOwuM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kV0MMq4MbmswKhCyQFBWzwcBm5nbwIQ62/QxIx+dMqOsGV/mDOxYtNdzC9A3Sp90t
	 VbbFK09bLO4XP2+GGwNqqUHYZpk8IBHQ95RzemKCDubQpiB9EdGkly4YUOxm5hPina
	 DeIkI8MoGghSP2gLU+evoHI0R1BIiOCrgZDKT0oE=
From: "Simon.Richter at hogyros dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/109930] transform atomic exchange to
 unconditional store when old value is unused?
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 01:40:48 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: Simon.Richter at hogyros dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109930-4-7IpWeiULyP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109930-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109930-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109930

--- Comment #5 from Simon Richter <Simon.Richter at hogyros dot de> ---
> Btw if you know the old state then there is presumably no concurrent acce=
ss here and so you don't need atomic, let alone sequential consistency.

I know it in some, but not all cases.

Basically, what I do is

        auto old_x =3D x.load();

    retry:
        switch(old_x) {
        case 1:
            if(!x.compare_exchange_weak(old_x, 2))
                 goto retry;
            stop_timer();
            old_x =3D x.exchange(4);
            assert(old_x =3D=3D 2);
            break;
        case 2:
            // we must have preempted another instance of this function
            // do nothing
            break;
        case 3:
            // handle timeout
            ...
            break;
        case 4:
            // handle operation complete
            ...
        }

This is in code for timeout handling in a realtime system, the timer interr=
upt
can preempt this. State 1 is "operation in progress", state 2 is "operation
finished", state 3 is "operation timed out", and state 4 is "operation fini=
shed
and timer stopped", and the timer interrupt will try to switch from 1 to 3.

The transient state 2 then solves the race between the timer expiring and
stopping the timer (which is asynchronous because the interrupt controller =
has
a few cycles delay).

So the switch from state 2 to state 4 has release semantics.=