This is the right patch. The previous one is missing noexcept. Sorry.


On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 9:23 AM Maged Michael <maged.michael@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please find attached an updated patch after incorporating Jonathan's
> suggestions.
>
> Changes from the last patch include:
> - Add a TSAN macro to bits/c++config.
> - Use separate constexpr bool-s for the conditions for lock-freedom,
> double-width and alignment.
> - Move the code in the optimized path to a separate function
> _M_release_double_width_cas.
>
> Thanks,
> Maged
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:55 AM Maged Michael <maged.michael@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Jonathan, for the detailed comments! I'll update the patch
>> accordingly.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:55 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 20:51, Maged Michael wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Please find a proposed patch for _Sp_counted_base::_M_release to skip
>>> the
>>> > two atomic instructions that decrement each of the use count and the
>>> weak
>>> > count when both are 1. I proposed the general idea in an earlier
>>> thread (
>>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2020-December/051642.html)
>>> and got
>>> > useful feedback on a draft patch and responses to related questions
>>> about
>>> > multi-granular atomicity and alignment. This patch is based on that
>>> > feedback.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I added a check for thread sanitizer to use the current algorithm in
>>> that
>>> > case because TSAN does not support multi-granular atomicity. I'd like
>>> to
>>> > add a check of __has_feature(thread_sanitizer) for building using
>>> LLVM. I
>>> > found examples of __has_feature in libstdc++
>>>
>>> There are no uses of __has_feature in libstdc++. We do use
>>> __has_builtin (which GCC also supports) and Clang's __is_identifier
>>> (which GCC doesn't support) to work around some weird semantics of
>>> __has_builtin in older versions of Clang.
>>>
>>>
>>> > but it doesn't seem to be
>>> > recognized in shared_ptr_base.h. Any guidance on how to check
>>> > __has_feature(thread_sanitizer) in this patch?
>>>
>>> I think we want to do something like this in include/bits/c++config
>>>
>>> #if __SANITIZE_THREAD__
>>> #  define _GLIBCXX_TSAN 1
>>> #elif defined __has_feature
>>> # if __has_feature(thread_sanitizer)
>>> #  define _GLIBCXX_TSAN 1
>>> # endif
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> Then in bits/shared_ptr_base.h
>>>
>>> #if _GLIBCXX_TSAN
>>>         _M_release_orig();
>>>         return;
>>> #endif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > GCC generates code for _M_release that is larger and more complex than
>>> that
>>> > generated by LLVM. I'd like to file a bug report about that. Jonathan,
>>>
>>> Is this the same issue as https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101406 ?
>>>
>>> Partly yes. Even when using __atomic_add_dispatch I noticed that clang
>> generated less code than gcc. I see in the response to the issue that the
>> new glibc is expected to optimize better. So maybe this will eliminate the
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>> > would you please create a bugzilla account for me (
>>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/) using my gmail address. Thank you.
>>>
>>> Done (sorry, I didn't notice the request in this mail until coming
>>> back to it to review the patch properly).
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Information about the patch:
>>> >
>>> > - Benefits of the patch: Save the cost of the last atomic decrements of
>>> > each of the use count and the weak count in _Sp_counted_base. Atomic
>>> > instructions are significantly slower than regular loads and stores
>>> across
>>> > major architectures.
>>> >
>>> > - How current code works: _M_release() atomically decrements the use
>>> count,
>>> > checks if it was 1, if so calls _M_dispose(), atomically decrements the
>>> > weak count, checks if it was 1, and if so calls _M_destroy().
>>> >
>>> > - How the proposed patch works: _M_release() loads both use count and
>>> weak
>>> > count together atomically (when properly aligned), checks if the value
>>> is
>>> > equal to the value of both counts equal to 1 (e.g., 0x100000001), and
>>> if so
>>> > calls _M_dispose() and _M_destroy(). Otherwise, it follows the original
>>> > algorithm.
>>> >
>>> > - Why it works: When the current thread executing _M_release() finds
>>> each
>>> > of the counts is equal to 1, then (when _lock_policy is _S_atomic) no
>>> other
>>> > threads could possibly hold use or weak references to this control
>>> block.
>>> > That is, no other threads could possibly access the counts or the
>>> protected
>>> > object.
>>> >
>>> > - The proposed patch is intended to interact correctly with current
>>> code
>>> > (under certain conditions: _Lock_policy is _S_atomic, proper
>>> alignment, and
>>> > native lock-free support for atomic operations). That is, multiple
>>> threads
>>> > using different versions of the code with and without the patch
>>> operating
>>> > on the same objects should always interact correctly. The intent for
>>> the
>>> > patch is to be ABI compatible with the current implementation.
>>> >
>>> > - The proposed patch involves a performance trade-off between saving
>>> the
>>> > costs of two atomic instructions when the counts are both 1 vs adding
>>> the
>>> > cost of loading the combined counts and comparison with two ones (e.g.,
>>> > 0x100000001).
>>> >
>>> > - The patch has been in use (built using LLVM) in a large environment
>>> for
>>> > many months. The performance gains outweigh the losses (roughly 10 to
>>> 1)
>>> > across a large variety of workloads.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'd appreciate feedback on the patch and any suggestions for checking
>>> > __has_feature(thread_sanitizer).
>>>
>>> N.B. gmail completely mangles patches unless you send them as
>>> attachments.
>>>
>>>
>>> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
>>> > b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
>>> >
>>> > index 368b2d7379a..a8fc944af5f 100644
>>> >
>>> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
>>> >
>>> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
>>> >
>>> > @@ -153,20 +153,78 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>>> >
>>> >         if (!_M_add_ref_lock_nothrow())
>>> >
>>> >           __throw_bad_weak_ptr();
>>> >
>>> >        }
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >        bool
>>> >
>>> >        _M_add_ref_lock_nothrow() noexcept;
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >        void
>>> >
>>> >        _M_release() noexcept
>>> >
>>> >        {
>>> >
>>> > +#if __SANITIZE_THREAD__
>>> >
>>> > +        _M_release_orig();
>>> >
>>> > +        return;
>>> >
>>> > +#endif
>>> >
>>> > +        if (!__atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(long long), 0) ||
>>>
>>> The line break should come before the logical operator, not after.
>>> This makes it easier to see which operator it is, because it's at a
>>> predictable position, not off on the right edge somewhere.
>>>
>>> i.e.
>>>
>>>         if (!__atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(long long), 0)
>>>            || !__atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(_Atomic_word), 0)
>>>            || sizeof(long long) < (2 * sizeof(_Atomic_word))
>>>            || sizeof(long long) > (sizeof(void*)))
>>>
>>> But I think I'd like to see this condition expressed differently
>>> anyway, see below.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > +            !__atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(_Atomic_word), 0) ||
>>> >
>>> > +            sizeof(long long) < (2 * sizeof(_Atomic_word)) ||
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this be != instead of < ?
>>>
>>> On a big endian target where sizeof(long long) > sizeof(_Atomic_word)
>>> loading two _Atomic_word objects will fill the high bits of the long
>>> long, and so the (1LL + (1LL << (8 * 4))) calculation won't match what
>>> got loaded into the long long.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > +            sizeof(long long) > (sizeof(void*)))
>>>
>>> This is checking the alignment, right? I think we can do so more
>>> reliably, and should comment it.
>>>
>>> I think I'd like to see this condition defined as a number of
>>> constexpr booleans, with comments. Maybe:
>>>
>>> constexpr bool __lock_free
>>>   = __atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(long long), 0)
>>>      && __atomic_always_lock_free(sizeof(_Atomic_word), 0);
>>> constexpr bool __double_word
>>>   = sizeof(long long) == 2 * sizeof(_Atomic_word);
>>> // The ref-count members follow the vptr, so are aligned to
>>> alignof(void*).
>>> constexpr bool __aligned = alignof(long long) <= alignof(void*);
>>>
>>> if _GLIBCXX17_CONSTEXPR
>>>   (__lock_free && __double_word && __aligned)
>>>   {
>>>     _M_release_double_width_cas();
>>>     return;
>>>   }
>>> else
>>>   {
>>>     // ... original body of _M_release();
>>>   }
>>>
>>> > +          {
>>> >
>>> > +            _M_release_orig();
>>> >
>>> > +            return;
>>> >
>>> > +          }
>>> >
>>> > +        _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_BEFORE(&_M_use_count);
>>> >
>>> > +        _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_BEFORE(&_M_weak_count);
>>> >
>>> > +        if (__atomic_load_n((long long*)(&_M_use_count),
>>> __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE)
>>> >
>>> > +            == (1LL + (1LL << (8 * sizeof(_Atomic_word)))))
>>>
>>> This should use __CHAR_BIT__ instead of 8.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > +          {
>>> >
>>> > +            // Both counts are 1, so there are no weak references and
>>> >
>>> > +            // we are releasing the last strong reference. No other
>>> >
>>> > +            // threads can observe the effects of this _M_release()
>>> >
>>> > +            // call (e.g. calling use_count()) without a data race.
>>> >
>>> > +            *(long long*)(&_M_use_count) = 0;
>>> >
>>> > +            _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_AFTER(&_M_use_count);
>>> >
>>> > +            _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_AFTER(&_M_weak_count);
>>> >
>>> > +            _M_dispose();
>>> >
>>> > +            _M_destroy();
>>> >
>>> > +          }
>>> >
>>> > +        else
>>> >
>>> > +          {
>>> >
>>> > +            if ((__gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add(&_M_use_count, -1) ==
>>> 1))
>>> >
>>> > +              {
>>> >
>>> > +                _M_release_last_use();
>>> >
>>> > +              }
>>> >
>>> > +          }
>>> >
>>> > +      }
>>> >
>>> > +
>>> >
>>> > +      void
>>> >
>>> > +      __attribute__ ((noinline))
>>> >
>>> > +      _M_release_last_use() noexcept
>>> >
>>> > +      {
>>> >
>>> > +        _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_AFTER(&_M_use_count);
>>> >
>>> > +        _M_dispose();
>>> >
>>> > +        if (_Mutex_base<_Lp>::_S_need_barriers)
>>> >
>>> > +          {
>>> >
>>> > +            __atomic_thread_fence (__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL);
>>> >
>>> > +          }
>>> >
>>> > +        _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_BEFORE(&_M_weak_count);
>>> >
>>> > +        if (__gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add_dispatch(&_M_weak_count,
>>> >
>>> > +                                                   -1) == 1)
>>> >
>>> > +          {
>>> >
>>> > +            _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_AFTER(&_M_weak_count);
>>> >
>>> > +            _M_destroy();
>>> >
>>> > +          }
>>> >
>>> > +      }
>>> >
>>> > +
>>> >
>>> > +      void
>>> >
>>> > +      _M_release_orig() noexcept
>>> >
>>> > +      {
>>> >
>>> >          // Be race-detector-friendly.  For more info see
>>> bits/c++config.
>>> >
>>> >          _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_BEFORE(&_M_use_count);
>>> >
>>> >         if (__gnu_cxx::__exchange_and_add_dispatch(&_M_use_count, -1)
>>> == 1)
>>> >
>>> >           {
>>> >
>>> >              _GLIBCXX_SYNCHRONIZATION_HAPPENS_AFTER(&_M_use_count);
>>> >
>>> >             _M_dispose();
>>> >
>>> >             // There must be a memory barrier between dispose() and
>>> > destroy()
>>> >
>>> >             // to ensure that the effects of dispose() are observed in
>>> the
>>> >
>>> >             // thread that runs destroy().
>>> >
>>> >             // See
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-11/msg00136.html
>>> >
>>> > @@ -279,20 +337,27 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>>> >
>>> >      _Sp_counted_base<_S_single>::_M_release() noexcept
>>> >
>>> >      {
>>> >
>>> >        if (--_M_use_count == 0)
>>> >
>>> >          {
>>> >
>>> >            _M_dispose();
>>> >
>>> >            if (--_M_weak_count == 0)
>>> >
>>> >              _M_destroy();
>>> >
>>> >          }
>>> >
>>> >      }
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +  template<>
>>> >
>>> > +    inline void
>>> >
>>> > +    _Sp_counted_base<_S_mutex>::_M_release() noexcept
>>> >
>>> > +    {
>>> >
>>> > +      _M_release_orig();
>>> >
>>> > +    }
>>> >
>>> > +
>>> >
>>> >    template<>
>>> >
>>> >      inline void
>>> >
>>> >      _Sp_counted_base<_S_single>::_M_weak_add_ref() noexcept
>>> >
>>> >      { ++_M_weak_count; }
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >    template<>
>>> >
>>> >      inline void
>>> >
>>> >      _Sp_counted_base<_S_single>::_M_weak_release() noexcept
>>> >
>>> >      {
>>> >
>>> >        if (--_M_weak_count == 0)
>>>
>>