`unsync_load` reads the memory as if it were a normal field (no atomic operation). The `std` atomic types already provide `get_mut` which gives access to the "raw" field when the caller has a mutable reference to the atomic. The mutable access guarantees there are no concurrent threads that can access the field, so it is safe.

The `unsync_load` is used because, at that point, two things are guaranteed: - The only thread that mutates the field is the `unsync_load` caller - All other threads will only read from that field.

Because of this, we can just do a "plain old" access of the field w/o the atomic overhead.

As for whether or not it should be in `std`, I don't know. It probably could, but it doesn't have to. It's a pretty "advanced" access strategy.

Is that not an undefined behaviour?

Can't you get some values "out of thin air" (partial updates of some bits.) Or some intermediate values?

(For example, can the compiler decide to use this memory location to store some unrelated temporary result, as it knows it will erase it soon with a final value and that no other threads is supposed to access this)

It's not undefined because the thread doing the reading is the same one that wrote the value in the first place, meaning there is no cross-thread behavior at the moment and therefore the memory model collapses down to the single-threaded model (where all atomic accesses are irrelevant).

The compiler cannot use the contents of an `UnsafeCell` for temporary storage. In general, `UnsafeCell` is how data can be shared across threads without synchronization.

I thought `UnsafeCell` is only exempt from the aliasing rules, not the memory model? I.e. the compiler can use it as it wants, if it can prove that it's not accessed in the meantime (which can be difficult without relying aliasing rules, but possible if the code is simple enough)

To be honest, I'm not entirely following what you see as the danger. The compiler can't generate code that randomly goes and writes at pointer locations.

In x86 at least, 32 bit loads and stores are done atomically already.

I know rust is not C or C++, but we are not programming in x86 assembly, but for the language "abstract machine". And if the compiler infer that this memory location is not used by other threads because we don't use an atomic operation, it can perform optimizations that could result in subtle bugs. That's what undefined behaviour is.

Although in this case, I guess this is probably fine since the non-atomic read can't race with a write.

The code is correct both practically and formally. All unordeeed reads are reading values written by the same thread. Even if the writes are atomic there is no violation of the no data races rule.

x86 does do out-of-order execution however, so while it's true that you'll never read a half-written value, it's still important to use the atomic types to ensure that reads/writes across threads are performed in the right order.

That's true but not what is being discussed here.

What is the difference with Ordering::Relaxed?

Ordering::Relaxed guarantees atomicity (but not coherence). On 32-bit or 64-bit platforms, a (aligned) 32-bit read or write will always be atomic anyway.

An assembly-level read or write will always be atomic anyway, and in fact a relaxed atomic read/write typically compiles down to the exact same assembly as a normal read/write. However, there are compiler optimizations that can break atomicity, such as splitting accesses into multiple parts; using (relaxed) atomics instructs the compiler not to perform those optimizations.

What do you mean by coherence? If it is the property that all updates to a single memory location are seen in a consistent order by all threads then Relaxed guarantees that.

it doesn't. From cppreference (whose model Rust roughly follows): "Relaxed operation: there are no synchronization or ordering constraints imposed on other reads or writes, only this operation's atomicity is guaranteed"

Still I think I am correct. The docs (https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/enum.Ordering.html...) point to https://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html#monotonic which states that "It essentially guarantees that if you take all the operations affecting a specific address, a consistent ordering exists." which is what I've said.

Yes, a consistent ordering exists but that ordering isn’t necessarily what you think or want it to be. The consistency is present based off the order the reads and writes were executed in; you’ll never read back a value that wasn’t at some point stored there. Which can happen with non-atomic reads/writes, where you’ll read part of one write and part of the next. Reads can still be reordered before writes, as no memory barriers are issued.

Well that doesn't contradict anything that I have said :) My question remains - what do you mean by coherence? I argue that it is precisely the property that there is a consistent order of operations a single memory memory location so you can't say that Relaxed operations don't satisfy coherence.

You are correct. IIRC Coherency is the only property of relaxed atomic operations, as opposed of plain load/stores where concurrent modification and access is just UB.

Relaxed ordering impacts the compiler. There are a number of optimizations it cannot make. I am not sure exactly what those are, but it is measurable.

The only forbidden optimization I could come up with is:

    x = load-relaxed(a)
    ...
    f(x)

cannot be turned into

    x0 = load-relaxed(a)
    ...
    x1 = load-relaxed(a)
    f(x1)

while this would be possible with normal memory access.

so under register pressure the compiler would be required to spill something onto the stack instead of just reloading `x` from the original location.

Last time I spoke about this topic w/ the rust compiler devs, they mentioned there were some LLVM "bugs" with regards to optimizations and Relaxed, as in LLVM is too conservative.

Probably some reordering? Would be interesting to compare generated assembly.

I believe there are some LLVM "bugs" with regards to Relaxed ordering. I don't know the specifics.