On 26/12/14 20:32, Matt Godbolt wrote: > I'm investigating ways to have single-threaded writers write to memory > areas which are then (very infrequently) read from another thread for > monitoring purposes. Things like "number of units of work done". > > I initially modeled this with relaxed atomic operations. This > generates a "lock xadd" style instruction, as I can't convey that > there are no other writers. > > As best I can tell, there's no memory order I can use to explain my > usage characteristics. > > Giving up on the atomics, I tried volatiles. > These are less than ideal as their power is less expressive, but in my > instance I am not trying to fight the ISA's reordering; just prevent > the compiler from eliding updates to my shared metrics. > > GCC's code generation uses a "load; add; store" for volatiles, instead > of a single "add 1, [metric]".
This is correct. > http://goo.gl/dVzRSq has the example (which is also at the bottom of my > email). > > Is there a reason why (in principal) the volatile increment can't be > made into a single add? Clang and ICC both emit the same code for the > volatile and non-volatile case. Yes. Volatiles use the "as if" rule, where every memory access is as written. a volatile increment is defined as a load, an increment, and a store. If you want single atomic increment, atomics are what you should use. If you want an increment to be written to memory, use a store barrier after the increment. Andrew.
