问题
Microsoft offers the InterlockedCompareExchange function for performing atomic compare-and-swap operations. There is also an _InterlockedCompareExchange intrinsic.
On x86 these are implemented using the lock cmpxchg instruction.
However, reading through the documentation on these three approaches, they don't seem to agree on the alignment requirements.
Intel's reference manual says nothing about alignment (other than that if alignment checking is enabled and an unaligned memory reference is made, an exception is generated)
I also looked up the lock prefix, which specifically states that
The integrity of the LOCK prefix is not affected by the alignment of the memory field.
(emphasis mine)
So Intel seems to say that alignment is irrelevant. The operation will be atomic no matter what.
The _InterlockedCompareExchange intrinsic documentation also says nothing about alignment, however the InterlockedCompareExchange function states that
The parameters for this function must be aligned on a 32-bit boundary; otherwise, the function will behave unpredictably on multiprocessor x86 systems and any non-x86 systems.
So what gives?
Are the alignment requirements for InterlockedCompareExchange just to make sure the function will work even on pre-486 CPU's where the cmpxchg instruction isn't available?
That seems likely based on the above information, but I'd like to be sure before I rely on it. :)
Or is alignment required by the ISA to guarantee atomicity, and I'm just looking the wrong places in Intel's reference manuals?
回答1:
The PDF you are quoting from is from 1999 and CLEARLY outdated.
The up-to-date Intel documentation, specifically Volume-3A tells a different story.
For example, on a Core-i7 processor, you STILL have to make sure your data doesn't not span over cache-lines, or else the operation is NOT guaranteed to be atomic.
On Volume 3A, System Programming, For x86/x64 Intel clearly states:
8.1.1 Guaranteed Atomic Operations
The Intel486 processor (and newer processors since) guarantees that the following basic memory operations will always be carried out atomically:
- Reading or writing a byte
- Reading or writing a word aligned on a 16-bit boundary
- Reading or writing a doubleword aligned on a 32-bit boundary
The Pentium processor (and newer processors since) guarantees that the following additional memory operations will always be carried out atomically:
- Reading or writing a quadword aligned on a 64-bit boundary
- 16-bit accesses to uncached memory locations that fit within a 32-bit data bus
The P6 family processors (and newer processors since) guarantee that the following additional memory operation will always be carried out atomically:
- Unaligned 16-, 32-, and 64-bit accesses to cached memory that fit within a cache line
Accesses to cacheable memory that are split across cache lines and page boundaries are not guaranteed to be atomic by the Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel® Atom™, Intel Core Duo, Pentium M, Pentium 4, Intel Xeon, P6 family, Pentium, and Intel486 processors. The Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel Atom, Intel Core Duo, Pentium M, Pentium 4, Intel Xeon, and P6 family processors provide bus control signals that permit external memory subsystems to make split accesses atomic; however, nonaligned data accesses will seriously impact the performance of the processor and should be avoided
回答2:
x86 does not require alignment for a lock cmpxchg instruction to be atomic. However, alignment is necessary for good performance.
This should be no surprise, backward compatibility means that software written with a manual from 14 years ago will still run on today's processors. Modern CPUs even have a performance counter specifically for split-lock detection because it's so expensive. (The core can't just hold onto exclusive access to a single cache line for the duration of the operation; it does have to do something like a traditional bus lock).
Why exactly Microsoft documents an alignment requirement is not clear. It's certainly necessary for supporting RISC architectures, but the specific claim of unpredictable behaviour on multiprocessor x86 might not even be valid. (Unless they mean unpredictable performance, rather than a correctness problem.)
Your guess of applying only to pre-486 systems without lock cmpxchg might be right; a different mechanism would be needed there which might have required some kind of locking around pure loads or pure stores. (Also note that 486 cmpxchg has a different and currently-undocumented opcode (0f a7) from modern cmpxchg (0f b1) which was new with 586 Pentium; Windows might have only used cmpxchg on P5 Pentium and later, I don't know.) That could maybe explain weirdness on some x86, without implying weirdness on modern x86.
Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual
Volume 3 (3A): System Programming Guide
January 20138.1.2.2 Software Controlled Bus Locking
To explicitly force the LOCK semantics, software can use the LOCK prefix with the following instructions when they are used to modify a memory location. [...]
• The exchange instructions (XADD, CMPXCHG, and CMPXCHG8B).
• The LOCK prefix is automatically assumed for XCHG instruction.
• [...][...] The integrity of a bus lock is not affected by the alignment of the memory field. The LOCK semantics are followed for as many bus cycles as necessary to update the entire operand. However, it is recommend that locked accesses be aligned on their natural boundaries for better system performance:
• Any boundary for an 8-bit access (locked or otherwise).
• 16-bit boundary for locked word accesses.
• 32-bit boundary for locked doubleword accesses.
• 64-bit boundary for locked quadword accesses.
Fun fact: cmpxchg without a lock prefix is still atomic wrt. context switches, so is usable for multi-threading on a single-core system.
Even misaligned it's still atomic wrt. interrupts (either completely before or completely after), and only memory reads by other devices (e.g. DMA) could see tearing. But such accesses could also see the separation between load and store, so even if old Windows did use that for a more efficient InterlockedCompareExchange on single-core systems, it still wouldn't require alignment for correctness, only performance. If this can be used for hardware access, Windows probably wouldn't do that.
If the library function needed to do a pure load separate from the lock cmpxchg this might make sense, but it doesn't need to do that. (If not inlined, the 32-bit version would have to load its args from the stack, but that's private, not access to the shared variable.)
回答3:
See this SO question: natural alignment is important for performance, and is required on the x64 architecture (so it's not just PRE-x86 systems, but POST-x86 ones too -- x64 may still be a bit of a niche case but it's growing in popularity after all;-); that may be why Microsoft documents it as required (hard to find docs on whether MS has decided to FORCE the alignment issue by enabling alignment checking -- that may vary by Windows version; by claiming in the docs that alignment is required, MS keeps the freedom to force it in some version of Windows even if they did not force it on others).
回答4:
Microsoft's Interlocked APIs also applied to ia64 (while it still existed). There was no lock prefix on ia64, only the cmpxchg.acq and cmpxchg.rel instructions (or fetchadd and other similar beasties), and these all required alignment if I recall correctly.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1415256/alignment-requirements-for-atomic-x86-instructions-vs-mss-interlockedcompareex