I came across the function InterlockedExchange and was wondering when I should use this function. In my opinion, setting a 32 Bit value on an x86 processor should always be atomic?
In the case where I want to use the function, the new value does not depend on the old value (it is not an increment operation).
Could you provide an example where this method is mandatory (I'm not looking for InterlockedCompareExchange)
InterlockedExchange is both a write and a read -- it returns the previous value.
This is necessary to ensure another thread didn't write a different value just after you did. For example, say you're trying to increment a variable. You can read the value, add 1, then set the new value with InterlockedExchange. The value returned by InterlockedExchange must match the value you originally read, otherwise another thread probably incremented it at the same time, and you need to loop around and try again.
As well as writing the new value, InterlockedExchange also reads and returns the previous value; this whole operation is atomic. This is useful for lock-free algorithms.
(Incidentally, 32-bit writes are not guaranteed to be atomic. Consider the case where the write is unaligned and straddles a cache boundary, for instance.)
In a multi-processor or multi-core machine each core has it's own cache - so each core has each own potentially different "view" of what the content of the system memory is.
Thread synchronization mechanisms take care of synchronizing between cores, for more information look at http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/10/03/8969397.aspx or google for acquire and release semantics
Setting a 32-bit value is atomic, but only if you're setting a literal.
b = a is 2 operations:
mov eax,dword ptr [a]
mov dword ptr [b],eax
Theoretically there could be some interruption between the first and second operation.
Writing a value is never atomic by default. When you write a value to a variable, several machine instructions are generated. With modern, preemptive OSes, the OS might switch to another thread between the individual operations of the write.
This is even more a problem on multi-processor machines, where several threads could be executing at the same time, and trying to write to a single memory location simultaneously.
Interlocked operations avoid this by using specialized instructions to make the write (x86 has dedicated instructions for this kind of situation), which do the read-modify-write in one instruction. These instructions also lock the memory bus of all processors, to ensure that no other executing thread could be writing to the value at the same time.
InterlockedExchange makes sure that the change of a variable and the return of its original value are not interrupted by other threads.
So, if 'i' is an int, these calls (taken individually) do not need InterlockedExchange around 'i':
a = i;
i = 9;
i = a;
i = a + 9;
a = i + 9;
if(0 == i)
None of these statements rely upon BOTH the initial AND final values of 'i'. But these following calls DO need InterlockedExchange around 'i':
a = i++; //a = InterlockedExchange(&i, i + 1);
Without it, two threads running through this same code might get the same value of 'i' assigned to 'a' or 'a' may unexpectedly skip two or more numbers.
if(0 == i++) //if(0 == InterlockedExchange(&i, i + 1))
Two threads may both execute the code that is only supposed to happen once.
etc.
wow, so many conflicting answers. Hard to sift through who's right, who's wrong, and what information is misleading.
I'm unsure of the answer too, given the above half-answers, but I think it works like this, I may be wrong, and it will be interesting to find out if I am:
32-bit read & writes ARE atomic, but depending on your code, that may not mean much.
don't worry about non-aligned read/writes. ALL 32-bit writes to a 32-bit variable have to be aligned or the machine page-faults.
don't worry about a write wrapping around the end of a cached page, that can't happen.
If you need to write-then-read on one thread, and you're writing on another thread, then you need to use InterlockedExchange. If you're simply reading the value on one thread, and writing it on another, then you don't need to use it, but those values may be wiggly because of multithreading.
Related
The following implementation from Wikipedia:
volatile unsigned int produceCount = 0, consumeCount = 0;
TokenType buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
void producer(void) {
while (1) {
while (produceCount - consumeCount == BUFFER_SIZE)
sched_yield(); // buffer is full
buffer[produceCount % BUFFER_SIZE] = produceToken();
// a memory_barrier should go here, see the explanation above
++produceCount;
}
}
void consumer(void) {
while (1) {
while (produceCount - consumeCount == 0)
sched_yield(); // buffer is empty
consumeToken(buffer[consumeCount % BUFFER_SIZE]);
// a memory_barrier should go here, the explanation above still applies
++consumeCount;
}
}
says that a memory barrier must be used between the line that accesses the buffer and the line that updates the Count variable.
This is done to prevent the CPU from reordering the instructions above the fence along-with that below it. The Count variable shouldn't be incremented before it is used to index into the buffer.
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code? The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Thanks
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code? The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Good question.
In c++, unless some form of memory barrier is used (atomic, mutex, etc), the compiler assumes that the code is single-threaded. In which case, the as-if rule says that the compiler may emit whatever code it likes, provided that the overall observable effect is 'as if' your code was executed sequentially.
As mentioned in the comments, volatile does not necessarily alter this, being merely an implementation-defined hint that the variable may change between accesses (this is not the same as being modified by another thread).
So if you write multi-threaded code without memory barriers, you get no guarantees that changes to a variable in one thread will even be observed by another thread, because as far as the compiler is concerned that other thread should not be touching the same memory, ever.
What you will actually observe is undefined behaviour.
It seems, that your question is "can incrementing Count and assigment to buffer be reordered without changing code behavior?".
Consider following code tansformation:
int count1 = produceCount++;
buffer[count1 % BUFFER_SIZE] = produceToken();
Notice that code behaves exactly as original one: one read from volatile variable, one write to volatile, read happens before write, state of program is the same. However, other threads will see different picture regarding order of produceCount increment and buffer modifications.
Both compiler and CPU can do that transformation without memory fences, so you need to force those two operations to be in correct order.
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code?
Nope. Can you construct any portable code that can tell the difference?
The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Why shouldn't it? What would the payoff be for the costs incurred? Things like write combining and speculative fetching are huge optimizations and disabling them is a non-starter.
If you're thinking that volatile alone should do it, that's simply not true. The volatile keyword has no defined thread synchronization semantics in C or C++. It might happen to work on some platforms and it might happen not to work on others. In Java, volatile does have defined thread synchronization semantics, but they don't include providing ordering for accesses to non-volatiles.
However, memory barriers do have well-defined thread synchronization semantics. We need to make sure that no thread can see that data is available before it sees that data. And we need to make sure that a thread that marks data as able to be overwritten is not seen before the thread is finished with that data.
Start with x = 0. Note there are no memory barriers in any of the code below.
volatile int x = 0
Thread 1:
while (x == 0) {}
print "Saw non-zer0"
while (x != 0) {}
print "Saw zero again!"
Thread 2:
x = 1
Is it ever possible to see the second message, "Saw zero again!", on any (real) CPU? What about on x86_64?
Similarly, in this code:
volatile int x = 0.
Thread 1:
while (x == 0) {}
x = 2
Thread 2:
x = 1
Is the final value of x guaranteed to be 2, or could the CPU caches update main memory in some arbitrary order, so that although x = 1 gets into a CPU's cache where thread 1 can see it, then thread 1 gets moved to a different cpu where it writes x = 2 to that cpu's cache, and the x = 2 gets written back to main memory before x = 1.
Yes, it's entirely possible. The compiler could, for example, have just written x to memory but still have the value in a register. One while loop could check memory while the other checks the register.
It doesn't happen due to CPU caches because cache coherency hardware logic makes the caches invisible on all CPUs you are likely to actually use.
Theoretically, the write race you talk about could happen due to posted write buffering and read prefetching. Miraculous tricks were used to make this impossible on x86 CPUs to avoid breaking legacy code. But you shouldn't expect future processors to do this.
Leaving aside for a second tricks done by the compiler (even ones allowed by language standards), I believe you're asking how the micro-architecture could behave in such scenario. Keep in mind that the code would most likely expand into a busy wait loop of cmp [x] + jz or something similar, which hides a load inside it. This means that [x] is likely to live in the cache of the core running thread 1.
At some point, thread 2 would come and perform the store. If it resides on a different core, the line would first be invalidated completely from the first core. If these are 2 threads running on the same physical core - the store would immediately affect all chronologically younger loads.
Now, the most likely thing to happen on a modern out-of-order machine is that all the loads in the pipeline at this point would be different iterations of the same first loop (since any branch predictor facing so many repetitive "taken" resolution is likely to assume the branch will continue being taken, until proven wrong), so what would happen is that the first load to encounter the new value modified by the other thread will cause the matching branch to simply flush the entire pipe from all younger operations, without the 2nd loop ever having a chance to execute.
However, it's possible that for some reason you did get to the 2nd loop (let's say the predictor issue a not-taken prediction just at the right moment when the loop condition check saw the new value) - in this case, the question boils down to this scenario:
Time -->
----------------------------------------------------------------
thread 1
cmp [x],0 execute
je ... execute (not taken)
...
cmp [x],0 execute
jne ... execute (not taken)
Can_We_Get_Here:
...
thread2
store [x],1 execute
In other words, given that most modern CPUs may execute instructions out of order, can a younger load be evaluated before an older one to the same address, allowing the store (from another thread) to change the value so it may be observed inconsistently by the loads.
My guess is that the above timeline is quite possible given the nature of out-of-order execution engines today, as they simply arbitrate and perform whatever operation is ready. However, on most x86 implementations there are safeguards to protect against such a scenario, since the memory ordering rules strictly say -
8.2.3.2 Neither Loads Nor Stores Are Reordered with Like Operations
Such mechanisms may detect this scenario and flush the machine to prevent the stale/wrong values becoming visible. So The answer is - no, it should not be possible, unless of course the software or the compiler change the nature of the code to prevent the hardware from noticing the relation. Then again, memory ordering rules are sometimes flaky, and i'm not sure all x86 manufacturers adhere to the exact same wording, but this is a pretty fundamental example of consistency, so i'd be very surprised if one of them missed it.
The answer seems to be, "this is exactly the job of the CPU cache coherency." x86 processors implement the MESI protocol, which guarantee that the second thread can't see the new value then the old.
I'm having trouble figuring out a key point in wait-free algorithm design. Suppose a data structure has a pointer to another data structure (e.g. linked list, tree, etc), how can the right time for releasing a data structure?
The problem is this, there are separate operations that can't be executed atomically without a lock. For example one thread reads the pointer to some memory, and increments the use count for that memory to prevent free while this thread is using the data, which might take long, and even if it doesn't, it's a race condition. What prevents another thread from reading the pointer, decrementing the use count and determining that it's no longer used and freeing it before the first thread incremented the use count?
The main issue is that current CPUs only have a single word CAS (compare & swap). Alternatively the problem is that I'm clueless about waitfree algorithms and data structures and after reading some papers I'm still not seeing the light.
IMHO Garbage collection can't be the answer, because it would either GC would have to be prevented from running if any single thread is inside an atomic block (which would mean it can't be guaranteed that the GC will ever run again) or the problem is simply pushed to the GC, in which case, please explain how the GC would figure out if the data is in the silly state (a pointer is read [e.g. stored in a local variable] but the the use count didn't increment yet).
PS, references to advanced tutorials on wait-free algorithms for morons are welcome.
Edit: You should assume that the problem is being solved in a non-managed language, like C or C++. After all if it were Java, we'd have no need to worry about releasing memory. Further assume that the compiler may generate code that will store temporary references to objects in registers (invisible to other threads) right before the usage counter increment, and that a thread can be interrupted between loading the object address and incrementing the counter. This of course doesn't mean that the solution must be limited to C or C++, rather that the solution should give a set of primitives that allowing the implementation of wait-free algorithms on linked data structures. I'm interested in the primitives and how they solve the problem of designing wait-free algorithms. With such primitives a wait-free algorithm can be implemented equally well in C++ and Java.
After some research I learned this.
The problem is not trivial to solve and there are several solutions each with advantages and disadvantages. The reason for the complexity comes from inter CPU synchronization issues. If not done right it might appear to work correctly 99.9% of the time, which isn't enough, or it might fail under load.
Three solutions that I found are 1) hazard pointers, 2) quiescence period based reclamation (used by the Linux kernel in the RCU implementation) 3) reference counting techniques. 4) Other 5) Combinations
Hazard pointers work by saving the currently active references in a well-known per thread location, so any thread deciding to free memory (when the counter appears to be zero) can check if the memory is still in use by anyone. An interesting improvement is to buffer request to release memory in a small array and free them up in a batch when the array is full. The advantage of using hazard pointers is that it can actually guarantee an upper bound on unreclaimed memory. The disadvantage is that it places extra burden on the reader.
Quiescence period based reclamation works by delaying the actual release of the memory until it's known that each thread has had a chance to finish working on any data that may need to be released. The way to know that this condition is satisfied is to check if each thread passed through a quiescent period (not in a critical section) after the object was removed. In the Linux kernel this means something like each task making a voluntary task switch. In a user space application it would be the end of a critical section. This can be achieved by a simple counter, each time the counter is even the thread is not in a critical section (reading shared data), each time the counter is odd the thread is inside a critical section, to move from a critical section or back all the thread needs to do is to atomically increment the number. Based on this the "garbage collector" can determine if each thread has had a chance to finish. There are several approaches, one simple one would be to queue up the requests to free memory (e.g. in a linked list or an array), each with the current generation (managed by the GC), when the GC runs it checks the state of the threads (their state counters) to see if each passed to the next generation (their counter is higher than the last time or is the same and even), any memory can be reclaimed one generation after it was freed. The advantage of this approach is that is places the least burden on the reading threads. The disadvantage is that it can't guarantee an upper bound for the memory waiting to be released (e.g. one thread spending 5 minutes in a critical section, while the data keeps changing and memory isn't released), but in practice it works out all right.
There is a number of reference counting solutions, many of them require double compare and swap, which some CPUs don't support, so can't be relied upon. The key problem remains though, taking a reference before updating the counter. I didn't find enough information to explain how this can be done simply and reliably though. So .....
There are of course a number of "Other" solutions, it's a very important topic of research with tons of papers out there. I didn't examine all of them. I only need one.
And of course the various approaches can be combined, for example hazard pointers can solve the problems of reference counting. But there's a nearly infinite number of combinations, and in some cases a spin lock might theoretically break wait-freedom, but doesn't hurt performance in practice. Somewhat like another tidbit I found in my research, it's theoretically not possible to implement wait-free algorithms using compare-and-swap, that's because in theory (purely in theory) a CAS based update might keep failing for non-deterministic excessive times (imagine a million threads on a million cores each trying to increment and decrement the same counter using CAS). In reality however it rarely fails more than a few times (I suspect it's because the CPUs spend more clocks away from CAS than there are CPUs, but I think if the algorithm returned to the same CAS on the same location every 50 clocks and there were 64 cores there could be a chance of a major problem, then again, who knows, I don't have a hundred core machine to try this). Another results of my research is that designing and implementing wait-free algorithms and data-structures is VERY challenging (even if some of the heavy lifting is outsourced, e.g. to a garbage collector [e.g. Java]), and might perform less well than a similar algorithm with carefully placed locks.
So, yeah, it's possible to free memory even without delays. It's just tricky. And if you forget to make the right operations atomic, or to place the right memory barrier, oh, well, you're toast. :-) Thanks everyone for participating.
I think atomic operations for increment/decrement and compare-and-swap would solve this problem.
Idea:
All resources have a counter which is modified with atomic operations. The counter is initially zero.
Before using a resource: "Acquire" it by atomically incrementing its counter. The resource can be used if and only if the incremented value is greater than zero.
After using a resource: "Release" it by atomically decrementing its counter. The resource should be disposed/freed if and only if the decremented value is equal to zero.
Before disposing: Atomically compare-and-swap the counter value with the minimum (negative) value. Dispose will not happen if a concurrent thread "Acquired" the resource in between.
You haven't specified a language for your question. Here goes an example in c#:
class MyResource
{
// Counter is initially zero. Resource will not be disposed until it has
// been acquired and released.
private int _counter;
public bool Acquire()
{
// Atomically increment counter.
int c = Interlocked.Increment(ref _counter);
// Resource is available if the resulting value is greater than zero.
return c > 0;
}
public bool Release()
{
// Atomically decrement counter.
int c = Interlocked.Decrement(ref _counter);
// We should never reach a negative value
Debug.Assert(c >= 0, "Resource was released without being acquired");
// Dispose when we reach zero
if (c == 0)
{
// Mark as disposed by setting counter its minimum value.
// Only do this if the counter remain at zero. Atomic compare-and-swap operation.
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _counter, int.MinValue, c) == c)
{
// TODO: Run dispose code (free stuff)
return true; // tell caller that resource is disposed
}
}
return false; // released but still in use
}
}
Usage:
// "r" is an instance of MyResource
bool acquired = false;
try
{
if (acquired = r.Acquire())
{
// TODO: Use resource
}
}
finally
{
if (acquired)
{
if (r.Release())
{
// Resource was disposed.
// TODO: Nullify variable or similar to let GC collect it.
}
}
}
I know this is not the best way but it works for me:
for shared dynamic data-structure lists I use usage counter per item
for example:
struct _data
{
DWORD usage;
bool delete;
// here add your data
_data() { usage=0; deleted=true; }
};
const int MAX = 1024;
_data data[MAX];
now when item is started to be used somwhere then
// start use of data[i]
data[i].cnt++;
after is no longer used then
// stop use of data[i]
data[i].cnt--;
if you want to add new item to list then
// add item
for (i=0;i<MAX;i++) // find first deleted item
if (data[i].deleted)
{
data[i].deleted=false;
data[i].cnt=0;
// copy/set your data
break;
}
and now in the background once in a while (on timer or whatever)
scann data[] an all undeleted items with cnt == 0 set as deleted (+ free its dynamic memory if it has any)
[Note]
to avoid multi-thread access problems implement single global lock per data list
and program it so you cannot scann data while any data[i].cnt is changing
one bool and one DWORD suffice for this if you do not want to use OS locks
// globals
bool data_cnt_locked=false;
DWORD data_cnt=0;
now any change of data[i].cnt modify like this:
// start use of data[i]
while (data_cnt_locked) Sleep(1);
data_cnt++;
data[i].cnt++;
data_cnt--;
and modify delete scan like this
while (data_cnt) Sleep(1);
data_cnt_locked=true;
Sleep(1);
if (data_cnt==0) // just to be sure
for (i=0;i<MAX;i++) // here scan for items to delete ...
if (!data[i].cnt)
if (!data[i].deleted)
{
data[i].deleted=true;
data[i].cnt=0;
// release your dynamic data ...
}
data_cnt_locked=false;
PS.
do not forget to play with the sleep times a little to suite your needs
lock free algorithm sleep times are sometimes dependent on OS task/scheduler
this is not really an lock free implementation
because while GC is at work then all is locked
but if ather than that multi access is not blocking to each other
so if you do not run GC too often you are fine
Could you describe two methods of synchronizing multi-threaded write access performed
on a class member?
Please could any one help me what is this meant to do and what is the right answer.
When you change data in C#, something that looks like a single operation may be compiled into several instructions. Take the following class:
public class Number {
private int a = 0;
public void Add(int b) {
a += b;
}
}
When you build it, you get the following IL code:
IL_0000: nop
IL_0001: ldarg.0
IL_0002: dup
// Pushes the value of the private variable 'a' onto the stack
IL_0003: ldfld int32 Simple.Number::a
// Pushes the value of the argument 'b' onto the stack
IL_0008: ldarg.1
// Adds the top two values of the stack together
IL_0009: add
// Sets 'a' to the value on top of the stack
IL_000a: stfld int32 Simple.Number::a
IL_000f: ret
Now, say you have a Number object and two threads call its Add method like this:
number.Add(2); // Thread 1
number.Add(3); // Thread 2
If you want the result to be 5 (0 + 2 + 3), there's a problem. You don't know when these threads will execute their instructions. Both threads could execute IL_0003 (pushing zero onto the stack) before either executes IL_000a (actually changing the member variable) and you get this:
a = 0 + 2; // Thread 1
a = 0 + 3; // Thread 2
The last thread to finish 'wins' and at the end of the process, a is 2 or 3 instead of 5.
So you have to make sure that one complete set of instructions finishes before the other set. To do that, you can:
1) Lock access to the class member while it's being written, using one of the many .NET synchronization primitives (like lock, Mutex, ReaderWriterLockSlim, etc.) so that only one thread can work on it at a time.
2) Push write operations into a queue and process that queue with a single thread. As Thorarin points out, you still have to synchronize access to the queue if it isn't thread-safe, but it's worth it for complex write operations.
There are other techniques. Some (like Interlocked) are limited to particular data types, and there are even more (like the ones discussed in Non-blocking synchronization and Part 4 of Joseph Albahari's Threading in C#), though they are more complex: approach them with caution.
In multithreaded applications, there are many situations where simultaneous access to the same data can cause problems. In such cases synchronization is required to guarantee that only one thread has access at any one time.
I imagine they mean using the lock-statement (or SyncLock in VB.NET) vs. using a Monitor.
You might want to read this page for examples and an understanding of the concept. However, if you have no experience with multithreaded application design, it will likely become quickly apparent, should your new employer put you to the test. It's a fairly complicated subject, with many possible pitfalls such as deadlock.
There is a decent MSDN page on the subject as well.
There may be other options, depending on the type of member variable and how it is to be changed. Incrementing an integer for example can be done with the Interlocked.Increment method.
As an excercise and demonstration of the problem, try writing an application that starts 5 simultaneous threads, incrementing a shared counter a million times per thread. The intended end result of the counter would be 5 million, but that is (probably) not what you will end up with :)
Edit: made a quick implementation myself (download). Sample output:
Unsynchronized counter demo:
expected counter = 5000000
actual counter = 4901600
Time taken (ms) = 67
Synchronized counter demo:
expected counter = 5000000
actual counter = 5000000
Time taken (ms) = 287
There are a couple of ways, several of which are mentioned previously.
ReaderWriterLockSlim is my preferred method. This gives you a database type of locking, and allows for upgrading (although the syntax for that is incorrect in the MSDN last time I looked and is very non-obvious)
lock statements. You treat a read like a write and just prevent access to the variable
Interlocked operations. This performs an operations on a value type in an atomic step. This can be used for lock free threading (really wouldn't recommend this)
Mutexes and Semaphores (haven't used these)
Monitor statements (this is essentially how the lock keyword works)
While I don't mean to denigrate other answers, I would not trust anything that does not use one of these techniques. My apologies if I have forgotten any.
I understand about race conditions and how with multiple threads accessing the same variable, updates made by one can be ignored and overwritten by others, but what if each thread is writing the same value (not different values) to the same variable; can even this cause problems? Could this code:
GlobalVar.property = 11;
(assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11), cause problems if multiple threads execute it at the same time?
The problem comes when you read that state back, and do something about it. Writing is a red herring - it is true that as long as this is a single word most environments guarantee the write will be atomic, but that doesn't mean that a larger piece of code that includes this fragment is thread-safe. Firstly, presumably your global variable contained a different value to begin with - otherwise if you know it's always the same, why is it a variable? Second, presumably you eventually read this value back again?
The issue is that presumably, you are writing to this bit of shared state for a reason - to signal that something has occurred? This is where it falls down: when you have no locking constructs, there is no implied order of memory accesses at all. It's hard to point to what's wrong here because your example doesn't actually contain the use of the variable, so here's a trivialish example in neutral C-like syntax:
int x = 0, y = 0;
//thread A does:
x = 1;
y = 2;
if (y == 2)
print(x);
//thread B does, at the same time:
if (y == 2)
print(x);
Thread A will always print 1, but it's completely valid for thread B to print 0. The order of operations in thread A is only required to be observable from code executing in thread A - thread B is allowed to see any combination of the state. The writes to x and y may not actually happen in order.
This can happen even on single-processor systems, where most people do not expect this kind of reordering - your compiler may reorder it for you. On SMP even if the compiler doesn't reorder things, the memory writes may be reordered between the caches of the separate processors.
If that doesn't seem to answer it for you, include more detail of your example in the question. Without the use of the variable it's impossible to definitively say whether such a usage is safe or not.
It depends on the work actually done by that statement. There can still be some cases where Something Bad happens - for example, if a C++ class has overloaded the = operator, and does anything nontrivial within that statement.
I have accidentally written code that did something like this with POD types (builtin primitive types), and it worked fine -- however, it's definitely not good practice, and I'm not confident that it's dependable.
Why not just lock the memory around this variable when you use it? In fact, if you somehow "know" this is the only write statement that can occur at some point in your code, why not just use the value 11 directly, instead of writing it to a shared variable?
(edit: I guess it's better to use a constant name instead of the magic number 11 directly in the code, btw.)
If you're using this to figure out when at least one thread has reached this statement, you could use a semaphore that starts at 1, and is decremented by the first thread that hits it.
I would expect the result to be undetermined. As in it would vary from compiler to complier, langauge to language and OS to OS etc. So no, it is not safe
WHy would you want to do this though - adding in a line to obtain a mutex lock is only one or two lines of code (in most languages), and would remove any possibility of problem. If this is going to be two expensive then you need to find an alternate way of solving the problem
In General, this is not considered a safe thing to do unless your system provides for atomic operation (operations that are guaranteed to be executed in a single cycle).
The reason is that while the "C" statement looks simple, often there are a number of underlying assembly operations taking place.
Depending on your OS, there are a few things you could do:
Take a mutual exclusion semaphore (mutex) to protect access
in some OS, you can temporarily disable preemption, which guarantees your thread will not swap out.
Some OS provide a writer or reader semaphore which is more performant than a plain old mutex.
Here's my take on the question.
You have two or more threads running that write to a variable...like a status flag or something, where you only want to know if one or more of them was true. Then in another part of the code (after the threads complete) you want to check and see if at least on thread set that status... for example
bool flag = false
threadContainer tc
threadInputs inputs
check(input)
{
...do stuff to input
if(success)
flag = true
}
start multiple threads
foreach(i in inputs)
t = startthread(check, i)
tc.add(t) // Keep track of all the threads started
foreach(t in tc)
t.join( ) // Wait until each thread is done
if(flag)
print "One of the threads were successful"
else
print "None of the threads were successful"
I believe the above code would be OK, assuming you're fine with not knowing which thread set the status to true, and you can wait for all the multi-threaded stuff to finish before reading that flag. I could be wrong though.
If the operation is atomic, you should be able to get by just fine. But I wouldn't do that in practice. It is better just to acquire a lock on the object and write the value.
Assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11, then I don't see a reason for assigment in the first place. Just make it a constant then.
Assigment only makes sense when you intend to change the value unless the act of assigment itself has other side effects - like volatile writes have memory visibility side-effects in Java. And if you change state shared between multiple threads, then you need to synchronize or otherwise "handle" the problem of concurrency.
When you assign a value, without proper synchronization, to some state shared between multiple threads, then there's no guarantees for when the other threads will see that change. And no visibility guarantees means that it it possible that the other threads will never see the assignt.
Compilers, JITs, CPU caches. They're all trying to make your code run as fast as possible, and if you don't make any explicit requirements for memory visibility, then they will take advantage of that. If not on your machine, then somebody elses.