Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:07:56 -0500
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_atomic_compare_exchange_*() and memory barriers
Message-ID: <oc4iicdkwyhdf5o5vbwsl7jdlqnds37xtf27wuxvhy3abxoo6i@4ek3xp5j6niy>
References: 
 <CAPpHfdudejddHLLw=Uk_7pZ=1g2SZXfwubSgmWUhJ7fBUtR9rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2muwyx6a5vojkg7iegknhnkcch3lfxptsxk7icwuh7szkvvu2y@vc3ukkfvnu6i>
 <CAPpHfdvucbQ9w7_eJYefUUp6w-WZUes+SRfq+GKfhukhs7kLqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPpHfdvucbQ9w7_eJYefUUp6w-WZUes+SRfq+GKfhukhs7kLqg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/oc4iicdkwyhdf5o5vbwsl7jdlqnds37xtf27wuxvhy3abxoo6i%404ek3xp5j6niy>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2025-03-07 18:39:42 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 6:02 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2025-03-07 17:47:08 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > While investigating a bug in the patch to get rid of WALBufMappingLock, I
> > > found that the surrounding pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() fixes the
> > > problem for me.
> >
> > That sounds more likely to be due to slowing down things enough to make a race
> > less likely to be hit. Or a compiler bug.
> >
> >
> > > That doesn't feel right because, according to the
> > > comments, both pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32() and
> > > pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() should provide full memory barrier
> > > semantics.  So, I decided to investigate this further.
> > >
> > > In my case, the implementation of pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() is based
> > > on __atomic_compare_exchange_n().
> > >
> > > static inline bool
> > > pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(volatile pg_atomic_uint64 *ptr,
> > >                                     uint64 *expected, uint64 newval)
> > > {
> > >     AssertPointerAlignment(expected, 8);
> > >     return __atomic_compare_exchange_n(&ptr->value, expected, newval, false,
> > >                                        __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
> > > }
> > >
> > > According to the docs __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST enforces total ordering with *all
> > > other __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST operations*.  It only says about other
> > > __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST operations; nothing is said about regular reads/writes.
> > > This sounds quite far from our comment, promising full barrier semantics,
> > > which, in my understanding, means the equivalent of
> > > both pg_read_barrier()/pg_write_barrier(), which should barrier *all other
> > > read/writes*.
> >
> > A memory barrier in one process/thread always needs be paired with a barrier
> > in another process/thread. It's not enough to have a memory barrier on one
> > side but not the other.
>
> Yes, there surely should be a memory barrier on another side.  But
> does __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST works as a barrier for the regular read/write
> operations on the same side?

Yes, if it's paired with another barrier on the other side. The regular
read/write operations are basically protected transitively, due to

a) An acquire barrier preventing non-atomic reads/writes in the same thread
   from appearing to have been moved to before the barrier

b) A release barrier preventing non-atomic reads/writes in the same thread
   from appearing to have been moved to after the barrier

c) The other thread being guaranteed a) and b) for the other threads'
   non-atomic reads/writes depending on the type of barrier

d) The atomic value itself being guaranteed to be, well, atomic


> > > This function first checks if LSE instructions are present.  If so,
> > > instruction LSE casal is used.  If not (in my case), the loop of
> > > ldaxr/stlxr is used instead.  The documentation says both ldaxr/stlxr
> > > provides one-way barriers.  Read/writes after ldaxr will be observed after,
> > > and read/writes before stlxr will be observed before.  So, a pair of these
> > > instructions provides a full memory barrier.  However, if we don't observe
> > > the expected value, only ldaxr gets executed.  So, an unsuccessful
> > > pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64() attempt will leave us with a one-way
> > > barrier, and that caused a bug in my case.
> >
> > That has to be a compiler bug.  We specify __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST for both
> > success_memorder *and* failure_memorder.
> >
> > What compiler & version is this?
>
> I've tried and got the same results with two compilers.
> gcc (Ubuntu 13.3.0-6ubuntu2~24.04) 13.3.0
> Ubuntu clang version 19.1.1 (1ubuntu1~24.04.2)

Thinking more about it I wonder if the behaviour of not doing a release in
case the atomic fails *might* arguably actually be correct - if the
compare-exchange fails, there's nothing that the non-atomic values could be
ordered against.

What is the access pattern and the observed problems with it that made you
look at the disassembly?

Greetings,

Andres Freund