这个Atomic浮点数的C ++实现安全吗?

时间:2008-10-28 03:36:46

标签: c++ thread-safety atomic tbb

  

编辑:这里的代码仍有一些错误,它可以在性能部门做得更好,但不是试图解决这个问题,为了记录,我把问题解决了英特尔的讨论小组得到了很多很好的反馈,如果一切顺利的话,英特尔线程构建模块的近期版本中将包含一个优质的原子浮点数

好的,这是一个艰难的,我想要一个原子浮点,不是为了超快的图形性能,而是常规地用作类的数据成员。而且我不想为在这些类上使用锁定付出代价,因为它不能为我的需求提供额外的好处。

现在有了intel的tbb和我见过的其他原子库,支持整数类型,但不支持浮点数。所以我继续实施了一个,它可以工作......但是我不确定它是否真的有用,或者我很幸运,它的工作原理。

这里的任何人都知道这不是某种形式的异端邪说吗?

typedef unsigned int uint_32;

  struct AtomicFloat
  {
    private:
    tbb::atomic<uint_32> atomic_value_;

    public:
    template<memory_semantics M>
    float fetch_and_store( float value ) 
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<uint_32>::fetch_and_store<M>((uint_32&)value);
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    float fetch_and_store( float value ) 
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<uint_32>::fetch_and_store((uint_32&)value);
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    template<memory_semantics M>
    float compare_and_swap( float value, float comparand ) 
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<uint_32>::compare_and_swap<M>((uint_32&)value,(uint_32&)compare);
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    float compare_and_swap(float value, float compare)
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<uint_32>::compare_and_swap((uint_32&)value,(uint_32&)compare);
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    operator float() const volatile // volatile qualifier here for backwards compatibility 
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_;
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    float operator=(float value)
    {
        const uint_32 value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<uint_32>::operator =((uint_32&)value);
        return reinterpret_cast<const float&>(value_);
    }

    float operator+=(float value)
    {
        volatile float old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<float&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ + value;
        } while(compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_);
    }

    float operator*=(float value)
    {
        volatile float old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<float&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ * value;
        } while(compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_);
    }

    float operator/=(float value)
    {
        volatile float old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<float&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ / value;
        } while(compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_);
    }

    float operator-=(float value)
    {
        return this->operator+=(-value);
    }

    float operator++() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(1);
    }

    float operator--() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(-1);
    }

    float fetch_and_add( float addend ) 
    {
        return this->operator+=(-addend);
    }

    float fetch_and_increment() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(1);
    }

    float fetch_and_decrement() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(-1);
    }
   };

谢谢!

编辑:将size_t更改为uint32_t,正如格雷格罗杰斯建议的那样,它更便于携带

修改:添加了整个内容的列表,并修复了一些内容。

更多编辑:使用锁定的浮点数为5.000.000 +的性能明智+ =我的机器上有100个线程的操作需要3.6秒,而我的原子浮点数即使其愚蠢的操作需要0.2秒做同样的工作。因此,如果正确的话,> 30倍的性能提升意味着它的价值,(这就是问题)。

更多编辑:由于Awgn指出我的fetch_and_xxxx部分都错了。修复了我不确定的API和移除的部分(模板化内存模型)。并根据operator + =实现其他操作以避免代码重复

已添加:添加了运算符* =和运算符/ =,因为没有它们,浮点数不会浮动。感谢Peterchen的评论,注意到这一点

编辑:最新版本的代码如下(我将保留旧版本以供参考)

  #include <tbb/atomic.h>
  typedef unsigned int      uint_32;
  typedef __TBB_LONG_LONG       uint_64;

  template<typename FLOATING_POINT,typename MEMORY_BLOCK>
  struct atomic_float_
  {
    /*  CRC Card -----------------------------------------------------
    |   Class:          atmomic float template class
    |
    |   Responsability: handle integral atomic memory as it were a float,
    |                   but partially bypassing FPU, SSE/MMX, so it is
    |                   slower than a true float, but faster and smaller
    |                   than a locked float.
    |                       *Warning* If your float usage is thwarted by
    |                   the A-B-A problem this class isn't for you
    |                       *Warning* Atomic specification says we return,
    |                   values not l-values. So  (i = j) = k doesn't work.
    |
    |   Collaborators:  intel's tbb::atomic handles memory atomicity
    ----------------------------------------------------------------*/
    typedef typename atomic_float_<FLOATING_POINT,MEMORY_BLOCK> self_t;

    tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK> atomic_value_;

    template<memory_semantics M>
    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_store( FLOATING_POINT value ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::fetch_and_store<M>((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_store( FLOATING_POINT value ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::fetch_and_store((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    template<memory_semantics M>
    FLOATING_POINT compare_and_swap( FLOATING_POINT value, FLOATING_POINT comparand ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::compare_and_swap<M>((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value,(MEMORY_BLOCK&)compare);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    FLOATING_POINT compare_and_swap(FLOATING_POINT value, FLOATING_POINT compare)
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::compare_and_swap((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value,(MEMORY_BLOCK&)compare);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    operator FLOATING_POINT() const volatile // volatile qualifier here for backwards compatibility 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_;
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    //Note: atomic specification says we return the a copy of the base value not an l-value
    FLOATING_POINT operator=(FLOATING_POINT rhs) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::operator =((MEMORY_BLOCK&)rhs);
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    //Note: atomic specification says we return an l-value when operating among atomics
    self_t& operator=(self_t& rhs) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::operator =((MEMORY_BLOCK&)rhs);
        return *this;
    }

    FLOATING_POINT& _internal_reference() const
    {
        return reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::_internal_reference());
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator+=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ + value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue because
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator*=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ * value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue becaus
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator/=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ / value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue because
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator-=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        return this->operator+=(-value); //return resulting value
    }

    //Prefix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator++()
    {
        return this->operator+=(1); //return resulting value
    }

    //Prefix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator--() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(-1); //return resulting value
    }

    //Postfix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator++(int)
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT temp = this;
        this->operator+=(1);
        return temp//return resulting value
    }

    //Postfix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator--(int) 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT temp = this;
        this->operator+=(1);
        return temp//return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_add( FLOATING_POINT addend ) 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(addend);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_increment() 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(+1);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_decrement() 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(-1);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }
  };

  typedef atomic_float_<float,uint_32> AtomicFloat;
  typedef atomic_float_<double,uint_64> AtomicDouble;

8 个答案:

答案 0 :(得分:5)

我会认真反对公共继承。我不知道原子实现是什么样的,但我假设它已经重载了使用它作为整数类型的运算符,这意味着在许多(可能是大多数?)情况下,这些促销将被用来代替你的浮点数。

我认为没有任何理由不起作用,但是像我一样,我必须证明这一点...

一个注意事项:你的operator float()例程没有load-acquire语义,不应该将它标记为const volatile(或者至少是const)?

编辑:如果您打算提供运营商 - (),您应提供前缀/后缀形式。

答案 1 :(得分:3)

看起来您的实现假定为sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(float)。这对您的目标平台总是如此吗?

我不会说线程异端,就像施放异端邪说一样。 :)

答案 2 :(得分:1)

这是在知识产权委员会谈判后现在的代码状态,但仍未经过彻底验证,无法在所有情况下正常工作。

  #include <tbb/atomic.h>
  typedef unsigned int      uint_32;
  typedef __TBB_LONG_LONG       uint_64;

  template<typename FLOATING_POINT,typename MEMORY_BLOCK>
  struct atomic_float_
  {
    /*  CRC Card -----------------------------------------------------
    |   Class:          atmomic float template class
    |
    |   Responsability: handle integral atomic memory as it were a float,
    |                   but partially bypassing FPU, SSE/MMX, so it is
    |                   slower than a true float, but faster and smaller
    |                   than a locked float.
    |                       *Warning* If your float usage is thwarted by
    |                   the A-B-A problem this class isn't for you
    |                       *Warning* Atomic specification says we return,
    |                   values not l-values. So  (i = j) = k doesn't work.
    |
    |   Collaborators:  intel's tbb::atomic handles memory atomicity
    ----------------------------------------------------------------*/
    typedef typename atomic_float_<FLOATING_POINT,MEMORY_BLOCK> self_t;

    tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK> atomic_value_;

    template<memory_semantics M>
    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_store( FLOATING_POINT value ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::fetch_and_store<M>((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_store( FLOATING_POINT value ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::fetch_and_store((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    template<memory_semantics M>
    FLOATING_POINT compare_and_swap( FLOATING_POINT value, FLOATING_POINT comparand ) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::compare_and_swap<M>((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value,(MEMORY_BLOCK&)compare);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    FLOATING_POINT compare_and_swap(FLOATING_POINT value, FLOATING_POINT compare)
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = 
            atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::compare_and_swap((MEMORY_BLOCK&)value,(MEMORY_BLOCK&)compare);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    operator FLOATING_POINT() const volatile // volatile qualifier here for backwards compatibility 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_;
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    //Note: atomic specification says we return the a copy of the base value not an l-value
    FLOATING_POINT operator=(FLOATING_POINT rhs) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::operator =((MEMORY_BLOCK&)rhs);
        return reinterpret_cast<const FLOATING_POINT&>(value_);
    }

    //Note: atomic specification says we return an l-value when operating among atomics
    self_t& operator=(self_t& rhs) 
    {
        const MEMORY_BLOCK value_ = atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::operator =((MEMORY_BLOCK&)rhs);
        return *this;
    }

    FLOATING_POINT& _internal_reference() const
    {
        return reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_.tbb::atomic<MEMORY_BLOCK>::_internal_reference());
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator+=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ + value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue because
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator*=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ * value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue becaus
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator/=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        FLOATING_POINT old_value_, new_value_;
        do
        {
            old_value_ = reinterpret_cast<FLOATING_POINT&>(atomic_value_);
            new_value_ = old_value_ / value;
        //floating point binary representation is not an issue because
        //we are using our self's compare and swap, thus comparing floats and floats
        } while(self_t::compare_and_swap(new_value_,old_value_) != old_value_);
        return (new_value_); //return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT operator-=(FLOATING_POINT value)
    {
        return this->operator+=(-value); //return resulting value
    }

    //Prefix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator++()
    {
        return this->operator+=(1); //return resulting value
    }

    //Prefix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator--() 
    {
        return this->operator+=(-1); //return resulting value
    }

    //Postfix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator++(int)
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT temp = this;
        this->operator+=(1);
        return temp//return resulting value
    }

    //Postfix operator
    FLOATING_POINT operator--(int) 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT temp = this;
        this->operator+=(1);
        return temp//return resulting value
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_add( FLOATING_POINT addend ) 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(addend);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_increment() 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(+1);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }

    FLOATING_POINT fetch_and_decrement() 
    {
        const FLOATING_POINT old_value_ = atomic_value_;
        this->operator+=(-1);
        //atomic specification requires returning old value, not new one as in operator x=
        return old_value_; 
    }
  };

  typedef atomic_float_<float,uint_32> AtomicFloat;
  typedef atomic_float_<double,uint_64> AtomicDouble;

答案 3 :(得分:1)

虽然 uint32_t 的大小可能与给定arch上的 float 的大小相等,但是通过将一个转换从一个转换为另一个,你隐式假设原子增量,减量和所有其他位操作在两种类型上在语义上是等价的,这是实际上不存在的。我怀疑它是否按预期工作。

答案 4 :(得分:1)

我强烈怀疑你在fetch_and_add等中得到了正确的值,因为float add与int addition不同。

以下是我从这些算术中得到的结果:

1   + 1    =  1.70141e+038  
100 + 1    = -1.46937e-037  
100 + 0.01 =  1.56743e+038  
23  + 42   = -1.31655e-036  

所以是的,线程安全但不是你期望的。

无锁算法(运算符+等)应该与原子性有关(没有检查算法本身..)


其他解决方案: 因为它是所有的加法和减法,你可能能够为每个线程提供自己的实例,然后从多个线程中添加结果。

答案 5 :(得分:1)

关于这个的一点说明(我想发表评论,但显然不允许新用户发表评论):在引用上使用reinterpret_cast会产生gcc 4.1 -O3的错误代码。这似乎在4.4中得到修复,因为它有效。将reinterpret_casts更改为指针虽然稍微丑陋,但在两种情况下都适用。

答案 6 :(得分:0)

从我对该代码的阅读中,我会非常生气地对这样的编译器感到生气,因为它为这个非原子的组件进行了组装。

答案 7 :(得分:0)

让您的编译器生成汇编代码并查看它。如果操作不只是一个汇编语言指令,那么是一个原子操作,并且需要锁才能在多处理器系统中正常运行。

不幸的是,我不确定反之亦然 - 单指令操作 保证是原子的。我不知道多级处理器编程的细节到那个级别。我可以为任何一个结果提出理由。 (如果其他人有关于此的确切信息,请随时加入。)