Skip to main content

Double Checked Locking Pattern, volatile keyword and memory barriers

Double Checked Locking Pattern (DCLP) is used to initialize singleton only once in a multithreaded application and also to avoid cost of acquiring lock everytime singleton is accessed. DCLP should be considered in two different dimensions. (1) CPU instruction reordering (2) Multi-processor machines.

In a single threaded application running on a modern CPU, use of volatile keyword in DCLP is really important. volatile keyword prevents any aggressive instruction reordering that modern CPUs might do. The static instance pointer of the singleton and the singleton by itself (both) should be volatile for the magic to work!

volatile exists for special purposes:
(1) the content of a volatile variable is “unstable” (can change by means unknown to the compiler),
(2) all writes to volatile data are “observable” so they must be executed religiously, and
(3) all operations on volatile data are executed in the sequence in which they appear in the source code.
The first two rules ensure proper reading and writing. The last one allows implementation of I/O protocols that mix input and output. This is informally what C and C++’s volatile guarantees.

In multiprocessor environment, DCLP should be used with memory barriers. This takes care of cache coherency issues between multiple CPUs and its effects on DCLP.

Source: C++ and the Perils of Double-Checked Locking

Comments

avitzur said…
Are the acquire and release barriers in Meyers and Alexandrescu's paper the same as read and write barriers?

- Ron

Popular posts from this blog

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together.

It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array?

int native[3][4];
std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr;

No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is:

std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr;

That's quite annoying for two r…

Understanding Fold Expressions

C++17 has an interesting new feature called fold expressions. Fold expressions offer a compact syntax to apply a binary operation to the elements of a parameter pack. Here’s an example. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This particular example is a unary left fold. It's equivalent to ((((1+2)+3)+4)+5). It reduces/folds the parameter pack of integers into a single integer by applying the binary operator successively. It's unary because it does not explicitly specify an init (a.k.a. identity) argument. So, let add it. template <typename... Args> auto addall(Args... args) { return (0 + ... + args); } addall(1,2,3,4,5); // returns 15. This version of addall is a binary left fold. The init argument is 0 and it's redundant (in this case). That's because this fold expression is equivalent to (((((0+1)+2)+3)+4)+5). Explicit identity elements will come in handy a little la…

Folding Monadic Functions

In the previous two blog posts (Understanding Fold Expressions and Folding Functions) we looked at the basic usage of C++17 fold expressions and how simple functions can be folded to create a composite one. We’ll continue our stride and see how "embellished" functions may be composed in fold expressions.

First, let me define what I mean by embellished functions. Instead of just returning a simple value, these functions are going to return a generic container of the desired value. The choice of container is very broad but not arbitrary. There are some constraints on the container and once you select a generic container, all functions must return values of the same container. Let's begin with std::vector.
// Hide the allocator template argument of std::vector. // It causes problems and is irrelevant here. template <class T> struct Vector : std::vector<T> {}; struct Continent { }; struct Country { }; struct State { }; struct City { }; auto get_countries…