[Mono-dev] Volatile fields don't enforce acquire - release semantics like Volatile.Read() and Volatile.Write()

Thu Jul 7 16:53:00 UTC 2016

Hello Rodrigo,

Sure you can. However this specific test does not reproduce the error in
iOS most of the time. I will send another one that has more repetitions
(and wraps-around the array).

I should file the bug, right?

Best,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera <kumpera at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Petros,
>
> It does look like a bug in our end. We do enforce ECMA's load-acquire,
> store-release semantics for volatiles.
>
> Can we integrate your test case into mono?
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Petros Douvantzis <petrakeas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Miguel,
>>
>> The initial code does *not *have the field marked as volatile. However,
>> it may work in Net 2.0 because it has stronger memory guarantees than the
>> ECMA.
>>
>> So, the articles continues saying "*Making the instance variable
>> volatile can make it work*". So, *if* the field were volatile, it would
>> work in every ECMA implementation.
>>
>> Also, I tried using:
>> adb shell setprop debug.mono.env "'MONO_ENV_OPTIONS=-O=-intrins'"
>> with no difference in the outcome.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Petros,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That blog post on double-check-locking explicitly states that without
>>> extra steps the pattern would not work.   Maybe I missed something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From that post:
>>>
>>> ·         Without any memory barriers, it's broken in the ECMA CLI
>>> specification too. It's possible that under the .NET 2.0 memory model
>>> (which is stronger than the ECMA spec) it's safe, but I'd rather not rely
>>> on those stronger semantics, especially if there's any doubt as to the
>>> safety. Making the instance variable volatile can make it work, as
>>> would explicit memory barrier calls, although in the latter case even
>>> experts can't agree exactly which barriers are required. I tend to try to
>>> avoid situations where experts don't agree what's right and what's wrong!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Petros Douvantzis <petrakeas at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:54 AM
>>> *To: *"mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com" <
>>> mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com>, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at microsoft.com
>>> >
>>> *Cc: *Rodrigo Kumpera <kumpera at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Mono-dev] Volatile fields don't enforce acquire -
>>> release semantics like Volatile.Read() and Volatile.Write()
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Miguel,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point. Even worse, it's a bit ambiguous of what guarantees
>>> does the volatile field make. For example in MSDN
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fx13ttww7.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=s02wpedE5%2fUhB9yawFzf3QlY51QePjK5rUj1c16Selk%3d>
>>>  nothing is mentioned about fences or memory re-orders. In that sense, Mono
>>> is correct. However, in ECMA 335 they mention acquire-release semantics
>>> such as the ones in the Volatile class you mentioned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One this to consider is that if the Volatile field does not have these
>>> semantics, then* lazy initialization* that relies on a volatile field
>>> and a lock ( double-check locking
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcsharpindepth.com%2fArticles%2fGeneral%2fSingleton.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=yk%2bj4W775WX%2b82pOGWXA4xyURhfDzV1XSvJle2p3L2w%3d> )
>>> is *broken *in Mono for iOS and Android, because there is a chance that
>>> a half created object is viewed by another thread. The way the volatile
>>> field is supposed to help, is explained in this post
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2fmagazine%2fjj883956.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Edq89e1H1sGysBYfBQFrb9WUTXczZe0ZlQfh1FQJvJc%3d>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The only way to make this work right now is using the Volatile class,
>>> but most probably someone would expect the volatile field to work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not convinced that this is a bug worth fixing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this requires some thinking.  While this might have been the
>>> intended visible behavior from C#, this predates the extensive use of C#
>>> beyond the x86 platform.   I believe this is why the Volatile APIs were
>>> introduced.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Consder the documentation for it:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg712971(v=vs.110).aspx
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fgg712971(v%3dvs.110).aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U4RIuTFZa6oqRlI3uSyP2q8by90V0mpKDfgmnqQNUZI%3d>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the language/runtime already provided this support, there would be no
>>> need for these volatile methods in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Miguel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *<mono-devel-list-bounces at lists.ximian.com> on behalf of Rodrigo
>>> Kumpera <kumpera at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM
>>> *To: *petrakeas <petrakeas at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *"mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com" <
>>> mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Mono-dev] Volatile fields don't enforce acquire -
>>> release semantics like Volatile.Read() and Volatile.Write()
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it looks like a bug.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:13 AM, petrakeas <petrakeas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> According to C#  specification
>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228593.aspx
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fms228593.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=66AJc2tU2gcy4vutTkC%2b4bPl3MxAnAiXd4POGNZ3ivA%3d>>
>>> :
>>>
>>> •       A read of a volatile field is called a volatile read. A volatile
>>> read has
>>> “acquire semantics”; that is, it is guaranteed to occur prior to any
>>> references to memory that occur after it in the instruction sequence.
>>> •       A write of a volatile field is called a volatile write. A
>>> volatile write
>>> has “release semantics”; that is, it is guaranteed to happen after any
>>> memory references prior to the write instruction in the instruction
>>> sequence.
>>>
>>> The spec presents  an example
>>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa645755(v=vs.71).aspx
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2faa645755(v%3dvs.71).aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cFpmsRLE5a248vj3svbpsmOBouE%2bOxE%2fwDMWjd0YkhU%3d>>
>>>  where
>>> one thread writes "data" on a non volatile variable and "publishes" the
>>> result by writing on a volatile variable that acts as a flag. The other
>>> thread checks the volatile flag and if set, it accesses the non-volatile
>>> variable that is now *guaranteed* to contain the data.
>>>
>>> It seems that Mono 4.4 (the one used in Xamarin) does not enforce these
>>> semantics or in other words does not prevent memory re-ordering in
>>> Android
>>> and iOS that have relaxed memory models due to their CPU.
>>>
>>> I have created an a test that reproduces the problem in iOS and Android
>>> Program.cs <http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4668111/Program.cs
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmono.1490590.n4.nabble.com%2ffile%2fn4668111%2fProgram.cs&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H7V6%2bpq4jV8Kw7QdgZMVJRav%2b1XovSCuIY3PgRFaJrk%3d>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> If the access to the volatile field is replaced by Volatile.Read() and
>>> Volatile.Write(), then no-problems occur. It seems that Volatile.Read()
>>> and
>>> Volatile.Write() implement half fences in Mono, but the volatile keyword
>>> does not.
>>>
>>> Is this a bug?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Volatile-fields-don-t-enforce-acquire-release-semantics-like-Volatile-Read-and-Volatile-Write-tp4668111.html
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmono.1490590.n4.nabble.com%2fVolatile-fields-don-t-enforce-acquire-release-semantics-like-Volatile-Read-and-Volatile-Write-tp4668111.html&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sqJVi9saxf7EEGpn6Wpf%2bFEeZX5yCpzK4%2b38x670OEw%3d>
>>> Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mono-devel-list mailing list
>>> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
>>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.ximian.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fmono-devel-list&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Sb1mXUpzvfBCP0RJh%2bB2orCGoBH3eV8Z8CY10t1NbC0%3d>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Petros Douvantzis
>>>
>>> Co-founder
>>>
>>> Horizon Video Technologies
>>>
>>> *horizon.camera
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fhorizon.camera&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=k%2bCLVnzGEb%2fX6zRRD4SfroHMqrvOcV7WJaGEOt2KYqM%3d>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Petros Douvantzis
>>
>> Co-founder
>>
>> Horizon Video Technologies
>>
>> horizon.camera
>>
>>
>

-- 

Petros Douvantzis

Co-founder

Horizon Video Technologies

horizon.camera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20160707/4281ab79/attachment-0001.html>