How is std::atomic_ref implemented for non-atomic types?

user_504286 0
Viewed 552

I am wondering how can std::atomic_ref be implemented efficiently (one std::mutex per object) for non-atomic objects as the following property seems rather hard to enforce:

Atomic operations applied to an object through an atomic_ref are atomic with respect to atomic operations applied through any other atomic_ref referencing the same object.

In particular, the following code:

void set(std::vector<Big> &objs, size_t i, const Big &val) {
    std::atomic_ref RefI{objs[i]};
    RefI.store(val);
}

Seems quite difficult to implement as the std::atomic_ref would need to somehow pick every time the same std::mutex (unless it is a big master lock shared by all objects of the same type).

Am I missing something? Or each object is responsible to implement std::atomic_ref and therefore either be atomic or carry a std::mutex?

stdmutex stdatomic c++20 c++
2 Answers

The implementation is pretty much exactly the same as std::atomic<T> itself. This is not a new problem.

See Where is the lock for a std::atomic? A typical implementation of std::atomic / std::atomic_ref a static hash table of locks, indexed by address, for non-lock-free objects. Hash collisions only lead to extra contention, not a correctness problem. (Deadlocks are still impossible; the locks are only used by atomic functions which never try to take 2 at a time.)

On GCC for example, std::atomic_ref is just another way to invoke __atomic_store on an object. (See the GCC manual: atomic builtins)

The compiler knows whether T is small enough to be lock-free or not. If not, it calls the libatomic library function which will use the lock.

(fun fact: that means it only works if the object has sufficient alignment for atomic<T>. But on many 32-bit platforms including x86, uint64_t might only have 4-byte alignment. atomic_ref on such an object will compile and run, but not actually be atomic if the compiler uses an SSE 8-byte load/store in 32-bit mode to implement it. Fortunately there's no danger for objects that have alignof(T) == sizeof(T), like most primitive types on 64-bit architectures.)

user_2241320

An implementation can use a hash based on the address of the object to determine which of a set of locks to acquire while performing the operation.

user_7212690
Related