As demonstrated in this answer I recently posted, I seem to be confused about the utility (or lack thereof) of
The problem with
volatile in a multithreaded context is that it doesn't provide all the guarantees we need. It does have a few properties we need, but not all of them, so we can't rely on
However, the primitives we'd have to use for the remaining properties also provide the ones that
volatile does, so it is effectively unnecessary.
For thread-safe accesses to shared data, we need a guarantee that:
volatilevariable as a flag to indicate whether or not some data is ready to be read. In our code, we simply set the flag after preparing the data, so all looks fine. But what if the instructions are reordered so the flag is set first?
volatile does guarantee the first point. It also guarantees that no reordering occurs between different volatile reads/writes. All
volatile memory accesses will occur in the order in which they're specified. That is all we need for what
volatile is intended for: manipulating I/O registers or memory-mapped hardware, but it doesn't help us in multithreaded code where the
volatile object is often only used to synchronize access to non-volatile data. Those accesses can still be reordered relative to the
The solution to preventing reordering is to use a memory barrier, which indicates both to the compiler and the CPU that no memory access may be reordered across this point. Placing such barriers around our volatile variable access ensures that even non-volatile accesses won't be reordered across the volatile one, allowing us to write thread-safe code.
However, memory barriers also ensure that all pending reads/writes are executed when the barrier is reached, so it effectively gives us everything we need by itself, making
volatile unnecessary. We can just remove the
volatile qualifier entirely.
Since C++11, atomic variables (
std::atomic<T>) give us all of the relevant guarantees.