Re: Fences/Barriers when mixing C++ atomics and non-atomics

[Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:31 PM Vineet Gupta <vineetg@rivosinc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a testcase (from real workloads) involving C++ atomics and trying
> to understand the codegen (gcc 12) for RVWMO and x86.
> It does mix atomics with non-atomics so not obvious what the behavior is
> intended to be hence some explicit CC of subject matter experts
> (apologies for that in advance).
>
> Test has a non-atomic store followed by an atomic_load(SEQ_CST). I
> assume that unadorned direct access defaults to safest/conservative seq_cst.
>
>     extern int g;
>     std::atomic<int> a;
>
>     int bar_noaccessor(int n, int *n2)
>     {
>          *n2 = g;
>          return n + a;
>     }
>
>     int bar_seqcst(int n, int *n2)
>     {
>          *n2 = g;
>          return n + a.load(std::memory_order_seq_cst);
>     }
>
> On RV (rvwmo), with current gcc 12 we get 2 full fences around the load
> as prescribed by Privileged Spec, Chpater A, Table A.6 (Mappings from
> C/C++ to RISC-V primitives).
>
>     _Z10bar_seqcstiPi:
>     .LFB382:
>          .cfi_startproc
>          lui    a5,%hi(g)
>          lw    a5,%lo(g)(a5)
>          sw    a5,0(a1)
>     *fence    iorw,iorw*
>          lui    a5,%hi(a)
>          lw    a5,%lo(a)(a5)
>     *fence    iorw,iorw*
>          addw    a0,a5,a0
>          ret
>
>
> OTOH, for x86 (same default toggles) there's no barriers at all.
>
>     _Z10bar_seqcstiPi:
>          endbr64
>          movl    g(%rip), %eax
>          movl    %eax, (%rsi)
>          movl    a(%rip), %eax
>          addl    %edi, %eax
>          ret
>

Regarding x86 memory model, please see Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures
Software Developer’s Manual, Volume 3A, section 8.2 [1]

[1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/intel-sdm.html

> My naive intuition was x86 TSO would require a fence before
> load(seq_cst) for a prior store, even if that store was non atomic, so
> ensure load didn't bubble up ahead of store.

As documented in the SDM above, the x86 memory model guarantees that

• Reads are not reordered with other reads.
• Writes are not reordered with older reads.
• Writes to memory are not reordered with other writes, with the
following exceptions:
...
• Reads may be reordered with older writes to different locations but
not with older writes to the same location.
...

Uros.

> Perhaps this begs the general question of intermixing non atomic
> accesses with atomics and if that is undefined behavior or some such. I
> skimmed through C++14 specification chapter Atomic Operations library
> but nothing's jumping out on the topic.
>
> Or is it much deeper, related to As-if rule or something.
>
> Thx,
> -Vineet