In this question one replier says
Atomicity means that operation either executes fully and all it's side effects are visible, or it does not execute at all.
However, below is an example given in Concurrency in Action $Lising 5.5
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <iostream>
std::atomic<int> x(0),y(0),z(0);
std::atomic<bool> go(false);
unsigned const loop_count=10;
struct read_values
{
int x,y,z;
};
read_values values1[loop_count];
read_values values2[loop_count];
read_values values3[loop_count];
read_values values4[loop_count];
read_values values5[loop_count];
void increment(std::atomic<int>* var_to_inc,read_values* values)
{
while(!go)
std::this_thread::yield();
for(unsigned i=0;i<loop_count;++i)
{
values[i].x=x.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
values[i].y=y.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
values[i].z=z.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
var_to_inc->store(i+1,std::memory_order_relaxed);
std::this_thread::yield();
}
}
void read_vals(read_values* values)
{
while(!go)
std::this_thread::yield();
for(unsigned i=0;i<loop_count;++i)
{
values[i].x=x.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
values[i].y=y.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
values[i].z=z.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
std::this_thread::yield();
}
}
void print(read_values* v)
{
for(unsigned i=0;i<loop_count;++i)
{
if(i)
std::cout<<",";
std::cout<<"("<<v[i].x<<","<<v[i].y<<","<<v[i].z<<")";
}
std::cout<<std::endl;
}
int main()
{
std::thread t1(increment,&x,values1);
std::thread t2(increment,&y,values2);
std::thread t3(increment,&z,values3);
std::thread t4(read_vals,values4);
std::thread t5(read_vals,values5);
go=true;
t5.join();
t4.join();
t3.join();
t2.join();
t1.join();
print(values1);
print(values2);
print(values3);
print(values4);
print(values5);
}
The sample output given by author is
(0,0,0),(1,0,0),(2,0,0),(3,0,0),(4,0,0),(5,7,0),(6,7,8),(7,9,8),(8,9,8),(9,9,10)
(0,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,2,0),(1,3,5),(8,4,5),(8,5,5),(8,6,6),(8,7,9),(10,8,9),(10,9,10)
(0,0,0),(0,0,1),(0,0,2),(0,0,3),(0,0,4),(0,0,5),(0,0,6),(0,0,7),(0,0,8),(0,0,9)
(1,3,0),(2,3,0),(2,4,1),(3,6,4),(3,9,5),(5,10,6),(5,10,8),(5,10,10),(9,10,10),(10,10,10)
(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(6,3,7),(6,5,7),(7,7,7),(7,8,7),(8,8,7),(8,8,9),(8,8,9)
The output seems that the modification in one thread is not visible to other thread immediately.
And the author also says:
Thread 3 doesn’t see any of the updates to x or y; it sees only the updates it makes to z. This doesn’t stop the other threads from seeing the updates to z mixed in with the updates to x and y though.
I'm confused that why thread3 doesn't see the modification of x and y. Does that mean atomic operation's side effects are visible is not true?Does that obey the cache coherency rule, which is guaranteed by computer hardware?
