ATOMIC_LOADSTORE(9)

NAME
atomic_load_relaxed, atomic_load_acquire, atomic_load_consume, atomic_store_relaxed, atomic_store_release - atomic and ordered memory operations

SYNOPSIS
#include <sys/atomic.h>
T
atomic_load_relaxed(const volatile T *p);
T
atomic_load_acquire(const volatile T *p);
T
atomic_load_consume(const volatile T *p);
void
atomic_store_relaxed(volatile T *p, T v);
void
atomic_store_release(volatile T *p, T v);

DESCRIPTION
These type-generic macros implement memory operations that are atomic and that have memory ordering constraints. Aside from atomicity and ordering, the load operations are equivalent to *p and the store operations are equivalent to *p = v. The pointer p must be aligned, even on architectures like x86 which generally lack strict alignment requirements; see SIZE AND ALIGNMENT for details.

Atomic means that the memory operations cannot be fused or torn:

•   Fusing is combining multiple memory operations on a single object into one memory operation, such as replacing
        	*p = v;
        	x = *p;

    by
        	*p = v;
        	x = v;

    since the compiler can prove that *p will yield v after *p = v. For atomic memory operations, the implementation will not assume that
    -   consecutive loads of the same object will return the same value, or
    -   a store followed by a load of the same object will return the value stored, or
    -   consecutive stores of the same object are redundant.
    Thus, the implementation will not replace two consecutive atomic loads by one, will not elide an atomic load following a store, and will not combine two consecutive atomic stores into one.

    For example,

        	atomic_store_relaxed(&flag, 1);
        	while (atomic_load_relaxed(&flag))
        		continue;

    may be used to set a flag and then busy-wait until another thread clears it, whereas

        	flag = 1;
        	while (flag)
        		continue;

    may be transformed into the infinite loop

        	flag = 1;
        	while (1)
        		continue;

•   Tearing is implementing a memory operation on a large data unit such as a 32-bit word by issuing multiple memory operations on smaller data units such as 8-bit bytes. The implementation will not tear atomic loads or stores into smaller ones. Thus, as far as any interrupt, other thread, or other CPU can tell, an atomic memory operation is issued either all at once or not at all.

    For example, if a 32-bit word w is written with

        atomic_store_relaxed(&w, 0x00010002);

    then an interrupt, other thread, or other CPU reading it with atomic_load_relaxed(&w) will never witness it partially written, whereas

        w = 0x00010002;

    might be compiled into a pair of separate 16-bit store instructions instead of one single word-sized store instruction, in which case other threads may see the intermediate state with only one of the halves written.

Atomic operations on any single object occur in a total order shared by all interrupts, threads, and CPUs, which is consistent with the program order in every interrupt, thread, and CPU. A single program without interruption or other threads or CPUs will always observe its own loads and stores in program order, but another program in an interrupt handler, in another thread, or on another CPU may issue loads that return values as if the first program's stores occurred out of program order, and vice versa. Two different threads might each observe a third thread's memory operations in different orders.

The memory ordering constraints make limited guarantees of ordering relative to memory operations on other objects as witnessed by interrupts, other threads, or other CPUs, and have the following meanings:

relaxed
    No ordering relative to memory operations on any other objects is guaranteed. Relaxed ordering is the default for ordinary non-atomic memory operations like *p and *p = v.

    Atomic operations with relaxed ordering are cheap: they are not read/modify/write atomic operations, and they do not involve any kind of inter-CPU ordering barriers.

acquire
    This memory operation happens before all subsequent memory operations in program order. However, prior memory operations in program order may be reordered to happen after this one. For example, assuming no aliasing between the pointers, the implementation is allowed to treat

        	int x = *p;
        	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
        		int y = *r;
        		*s = x + y;
        		return 1;
        	}

    as if it were

        	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
        		int x = *p;
        		int y = *r;
        		*s = x + y;
        		return 1;
        	}

    but not as if it were

        	int x = *p;
        	int y = *r;
        	*s = x + y;
        	if (atomic_load_acquire(q)) {
        		return 1;
        	}

consume
    This memory operation happens before all memory operations on objects at addresses that are computed from the value returned by this one. Otherwise, no ordering relative to memory operations on other objects is implied.

    For example, the implementation is allowed to treat

        	struct foo *foo0, *foo1;
        	struct foo *f0 = atomic_load_consume(&foo0);
        	struct foo *f1 = atomic_load_consume(&foo1);
        	int x = f0->x;
        	int y = f1->y;

    as if it were

        	struct foo *foo0, *foo1;
        	struct foo *f1 = atomic_load_consume(&foo1);
        	struct foo *f0 = atomic_load_consume(&foo0);
        	int y = f1->y;
        	int x = f0->x;

    but loading f0->x is guaranteed to happen after loading foo0 even if the CPU had a cached value for the address that f0->x happened to be at, and likewise for f1->y and foo1.

    atomic_load_consume() functions like atomic_load_acquire() as long as the memory operations that must happen after it are limited to addresses that depend on the value returned by it, but it is almost always as cheap as atomic_load_relaxed(). See ACQUIRE OR CONSUME? below for more details.

release
    All prior memory operations in program order happen before this one. However, subsequent memory operations in program order may be reordered to happen before this one too. For example, assuming no aliasing between the pointers, the implementation is allowed to treat

        	int x = *p;
        	*q = x;
        	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
        	int y = *s;
        	return x + y;

    as if it were

        	int y = *s;
        	int x = *p;
        	*q = x;
        	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
        	return x + y;

    but not as if it were

        	atomic_store_release(r, 0);
        	int x = *p;
        	int y = *s;
        	*q = x;
        	return x + y;

  PAIRING ORDERED MEMORY OPERATIONS
In general, each atomic_store_release() must be paired with either atomic_load_acquire() or atomic_load_consume() in order to have an effect — it is only when a release operation synchronizes with an acquire or consume operation that any ordering guaranteed between memory operations before the release operation and memory operations after the acquire/consume operation.

For example, to set up an entry in a table and then mark the entry ready, you should:

1.  Perform memory operations to initialize the data.

        	tab[i].x = ...;
        	tab[i].y = ...;

2.  Issue atomic_store_release() to mark it ready.

        	atomic_store_release(&tab[i].ready, 1);

3.  Possibly in another thread, issue atomic_load_acquire() to ascertain whether it is ready.

        	if (atomic_load_acquire(&tab[i].ready) == 0)
        		return EWOULDBLOCK;

4.  Perform memory operations to use the data.

        	do_stuff(tab[i].x, tab[i].y);

Similarly, if you want to create an object, initialize it, and then publish it to be used by another thread, then you should:

1.  Perform memory operations to initialize the object.

        	struct mumble *m = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*m), KM_SLEEP);
        	m->x = x;
        	m->y = y;
        	m->z = m->x + m->y;

2.  Issue atomic_store_release() to publish it.

        	atomic_store_release(&the_mumble, m);

3.  Possibly in another thread, issue atomic_load_consume() to get it.

        	struct mumble *m = atomic_load_consume(&the_mumble);

4.  Perform memory operations to use the object's members.

        	m->y &= m->x;
        	do_things(m->x, m->y, m->z);

In both examples, assuming that the value written by atomic_store_release() in step 2 is read by atomic_load_acquire() or atomic_load_consume() in step 3, this guarantees that all of the memory operations in step 1 complete before any of the memory operations in step 4 — even if they happen on different CPUs.

Without both the release operation in step 2 and the acquire or consume operation in step 3, no ordering is guaranteed between the memory operations in steps 1 and 4. In fact, without both release and acquire/consume, even the assignment m->z = m->x + m->y in step 1 might read values of m->x and m->y that were written in step 4.

  ACQUIRE OR CONSUME?
You must use atomic_load_acquire() when subsequent memory operations in program order that must happen after the load are on objects at addresses that might not depend arithmetically on the resulting value. This applies particularly when the choice of whether to do the subsequent memory operation depends on a control-flow decision based on the resulting value:

    	struct gadget {
    		int ready, x;
    	} the_gadget;
    	/* Producer */
    	the_gadget.x = 42;
    	atomic_store_release(&the_gadget.ready, 1);
    	/* Consumer */
    	if (atomic_load_acquire(&the_gadget.ready) == 0)
    		return EWOULDBLOCK;
    	int x = the_gadget.x;

Here the decision of whether to load the_gadget.x depends on a control-flow decision depending on value loaded from the_gadget.ready, and loading the_gadget.x must happen after loading the_gadget.ready. Using atomic_load_acquire() guarantees that the compiler and CPU do not conspire to load the_gadget.x before we have ascertained that it is ready.

You may use atomic_load_consume() if all subsequent memory operations in program order that must happen after the load are performed on objects at addresses computed arithmetically from the resulting value, such as loading a pointer to a structure object and then dereferencing it:

    	struct gizmo {
    		int x, y, z;
    	};
    	struct gizmo null_gizmo;
    	struct gizmo *the_gizmo = &null_gizmo;
    	/* Producer */
    	struct gizmo *g = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*g), KM_SLEEP);
    	g->x = 12;
    	g->y = 34;
    	g->z = 56;
    	atomic_store_release(&the_gizmo, g);
    	/* Consumer */
    	struct gizmo *g = atomic_load_consume(&the_gizmo);
    	int y = g->y;

Here the address of g->y depends on the value of the pointer loaded from the_gizmo. Using atomic_load_consume() guarantees that we do not witness a stale cache for that address.

In some cases it may be unclear. For example:

    	int x[2];
    	bool b;
    	/* Producer */
    	x[0] = 42;
    	atomic_store_release(&b, 0);
    	/* Consumer 1 */
    	int y = atomic_load_???(&b) ? x[0] : x[1];
    	/* Consumer 2 */
    	int y = x[atomic_load_???(&b) ? 0 : 1];
    	/* Consumer 3 */
    	int y = x[atomic_load_???(&b) ^ 1];

Although the three consumers seem to be equivalent, by the letter of C11 consumers 1 and 2 require atomic_load_acquire() because the value determines the address of a subsequent load only via control-flow decisions in the?: operator, whereas consumer 3 can use atomic_load_consume(). However, if you're not sure, you should err on the side of atomic_load_acquire() until C11 implementations have ironed out the kinks in the semantics.

On all CPUs other than DEC Alpha, atomic_load_consume() is cheap — it is identical to atomic_load_relaxed(). In contrast, atomic_load_acquire() usually implies an expensive memory barrier.

  SIZE AND ALIGNMENT
The pointer p must be aligned — that is, if the object it points to is 2^n bytes long, then the low-order n bits of p must be zero.

All NetBSD ports support cheap atomic loads and stores on units of data up to 32 bits. Some ports additionally support cheap atomic loads and stores on 64-bit quantities if __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE is defined. The macros are not allowed on larger quantities of data than the port supports atomically; attempts to use them for such quantities should result in a compile-time assertion failure.

For example, as long as you use atomic_store_*() to write a 32-bit quantity, you can safely use atomic_load_relaxed() to optimistically read it outside a lock, but for a 64-bit quantity it must be conditional on __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE — otherwise it will lead to compile-time errors on platforms without 64-bit atomic loads and stores:

    	struct foo {
    		kmutex_t	f_lock;
    		uint32_t	f_refcnt;
    		uint64_t	f_ticket;
    	};
    	if (atomic_load_relaxed(&foo->f_refcnt) == 0)
    		return 123;
    #ifdef __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
    	if (atomic_load_relaxed(&foo->f_ticket) == ticket)
    		return 123;
    #endif
    	mutex_enter(&foo->f_lock);
    	if (foo->f_refcnt == 0 || foo->f_ticket == ticket)
    		ret = 123;
    	...
    #ifdef __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE
    	atomic_store_relaxed(&foo->f_ticket, foo->f_ticket + 1);
    #else
    	foo->f_ticket++;
    #endif
    	...
    	mutex_exit(&foo->f_lock);

Some ports support expensive 64-bit atomic read/modify/write operations, but not cheap 64-bit atomic loads and stores. For example, the armv7 instruction set includes 64-bit ldrexd and strexd loops (load-exclusive, store-conditional) which are atomic on 64-bit quantities. But the cheap 64-bit ldrd / strd instructions are only atomic on 32-bit accesses at a time. These ports define __HAVE_ATOMIC64_OPS but not __HAVE_ATOMIC64_LOADSTORE, since they do not have cheaper 64-bit atomic load/store operations than the full atomic read/modify/write operations.

C11 COMPATIBILITY
These macros are meant to follow C11 semantics, in terms of atomic_load_explicit() and atomic_store_explicit() with the appropriate memory order specifiers, and are meant to make future adoption of the C11 atomic API easier. Eventually it may be mandatory to use the C11 _Atomic type qualifier or equivalent for the operands.

LINUX ANALOGUES
The Linux kernel provides two macros READ_ONCE(x) and WRITE_ONCE(x, v) which are similar to atomic_load_consume(&x) and atomic_store_relaxed(&x, v), respectively. However, while Linux's READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE prevent fusing, they may in some cases be torn — and therefore fail to guarantee atomicity — because:

•   They do not require the address &x to be aligned.

•   They do not require sizeof(x) to be at most the largest size of available atomic loads and stores on the host architecture.

MEMORY BARRIERS AND ATOMIC READ/MODIFY/WRITE
The atomic read/modify/write operations in atomic_ops(3) have relaxed ordering by default, but can be combined with the memory barriers in membar_ops(3) for the same effect as an acquire operation and a release operation for the purposes of pairing with atomic_store_release() and atomic_load_acquire() or atomic_load_consume(). If atomic_r/m/w() is an atomic read/modify/write operation in atomic_ops(3), then

    	membar_release();
    	atomic_r/m/w(obj, ...);

functions like a release operation on obj, and

    	atomic_r/m/w(obj, ...);
    	membar_acquire();

functions like a acquire operation on obj.

On architectures where __HAVE_ATOMIC_AS_MEMBAR is defined, all the atomic_ops(3) imply release and acquire operations, so the membar_acquire(3) and membar_release(3) are redundant.

The combination of atomic_load_relaxed() and membar_acquire(3) in that order is equivalent to atomic_load_acquire(), and the combination of membar_release(3) and atomic_store_relaxed() in that order is equivalent to atomic_store_release().

EXAMPLES
Maintaining lossy counters. These may lose some counts, because the read/modify/write cycle as a whole is not atomic. But this guarantees that the count will increase by at most one each time. In contrast, without atomic operations, in principle a write to a 32-bit counter might be torn into multiple smaller stores, which could appear to happen out of order from another CPU's perspective, leading to nonsensical counter readouts. (For frequent events, consider using per-CPU counters instead in practice.)

    	unsigned count;
    	void
    	record_event(void)
    	{
    		atomic_store_relaxed(&count,
    		    1 + atomic_load_relaxed(&count));
    	}
    	unsigned
    	read_event_count(void)
    	{
    		return atomic_load_relaxed(&count);
    	}

Initialization barrier.

    	int ready;
    	struct data d;
    	void
    	setup_and_notify(void)
    	{
    		setup_data(&d.things);
    		atomic_store_release(&ready, 1);
    	}
    	void
    	try_if_ready(void)
    	{
    		if (atomic_load_acquire(&ready))
    			do_stuff(d.things);
    	}

Publishing a pointer to the current snapshot of data. (Caller must arrange that only one call to take_snapshot() happens at any given time; generally this should be done in coordination with pserialize(9) or similar to enable resource reclamation.)

    	struct data *current_d;
    	void
    	take_snapshot(void)
            {
    		struct data *d = kmem_alloc(sizeof(*d));
    		d->things = ...;
    		atomic_store_release(&current_d, d);
    	}
    	struct data *
    	get_snapshot(void)
    	{
    		return atomic_load_consume(&current_d);
    	}

CODE REFERENCES
sys/sys/atomic.h

SEE ALSO
atomic_ops(3), membar_ops(3), pserialize(9)

HISTORY
These atomic operations first appeared in NetBSD 9.0.

CAVEATS
C11 formally specifies that all subexpressions, except the left operands of the ‘&&’, ‘||’, ‘?:’, and ‘’, operators and the kill_dependency() macro, carry dependencies for which memory_order_consume guarantees ordering, but most or all implementations to date simply treat memory_order_consume as memory_order_acquire and do not take advantage of data dependencies to elide costly memory barriers or load-acquire CPU instructions.

Instead, we implement atomic_load_consume() as atomic_load_relaxed() followed by membar_datadep_consumer(3), which is equivalent to membar_consumer(3) on DEC Alpha and __insn_barrier(3) elsewhere.

BUGS
Some idiot decided to call it tearing, depriving us of the opportunity to say that atomic operations prevent fusion and fission.