[PATCH] libstdc++: Skip atomic instructions in _Sp_counted_base::_M_release when both counts are 1
Maged Michael
maged.michael@gmail.com
Fri Jul 16 15:55:17 GMT 2021
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)
>
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list