[GHC] #15719: Primitive atomic logical operations
GHC
ghc-devs at haskell.org
Mon Oct 8 01:18:25 UTC 2018
#15719: Primitive atomic logical operations
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: dfeuer | Owner: (none)
Type: feature request | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.8.1
Component: Compiler | Version: 8.6.1
Resolution: | Keywords:
Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture:
| Unknown/Multiple
Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case:
Blocked By: | Blocking:
Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s):
Wiki Page: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Description changed by dfeuer:
Old description:
> We offer fetch-and-and, fetch-and-or, etc., which are available as GCC
> intrinsics. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell those operations are
> ''not'' actually offered by x86_64. So I ''believe'' GCC must be
> implementing them using CAS loops on that (rather important)
> architecture. On the other hand, that instruction set does offer a plain
> atomic-and, atomic-or, etc., that do not fetch. In some cases, that may
> be sufficient. For example, I'm currently designing a potential
> replacement for the stable pointer system that uses a bitmap to represent
> a free list. Each deletion operation needs to update the bitmap (or) and
> then check whether a certain threshold number of entries are free
> (popcnt). One straightforward way to accomplish this with available
> instructions would be
>
> 1. Atomic OR to mark an entry free
> 2. Load the bitmap
> 3. Perform the popcnt test
>
> Of course, it would be ''nice'' to have fetch-and-or here, but we don't
> actually need it--if a bunch of deletions happen concurrently, then at
> least one of them will see the popcnt over the threshold.
>
> Could we (and should we) offer non-fetching atomic operations implemented
> natively where they're available? One important question is of course
> whether we'd actually get better performance this way than using a CAS
> loop. I would conjecture that this is this case under contention, but I
> don't actually know.
New description:
We offer fetch-and-and, fetch-and-or, etc., which are available as GCC
intrinsics. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell those operations are
''not'' actually offered by x86_64. So I ''believe'' GCC must be
implementing them using CAS loops on that (rather important) architecture.
On the other hand, that instruction set does offer a plain atomic-and,
atomic-or, etc., that do not fetch. In some cases, that may be sufficient.
For example, I'm currently designing a potential replacement for the
stable pointer system that uses a bitmap to represent a free list. Each
deletion operation needs to update the bitmap (or) and then check whether
a certain threshold number of entries are free (popcnt). One
straightforward way to accomplish this with available instructions would
be
1. Atomic OR to mark an entry free
2. Load the bitmap
3. Perform the popcnt test
Of course, it would be ''nice'' to have fetch-and-or here, but we don't
actually need it--if a bunch of deletions happen concurrently, then at
least one of them will see the popcnt over the threshold (unless
intervening allocations with the same bitmap bring the popcnt below the
threshold, which is also perfectly acceptable).
Could we (and should we) offer non-fetching atomic operations implemented
natively where they're available? One important question is of course
whether we'd actually get better performance this way than using a CAS
loop. I would conjecture that this is this case under contention, but I
don't actually know.
--
--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15719#comment:1>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
More information about the ghc-tickets
mailing list