What you've got there is a "Happens before" constraint. Your "no possible way" is assuming Sequential Consistency, but I assure you that your CPU does not in fact provide Sequentially Consistent ordering of individual CPU operations across multiple cores.
You need some way to reliably Order the events. It's possible that the vaguely named "atomic" operations in Haiku provide you with adequate ordering, but who knows since they don't specify.
I am assuming events cannot finish before they are started, yes! I am pretty sure that even the (in)famous DEC Alpha could not possibly have time-traveling results.
Once again: there is a distinction between the API itself, and the API's implementation. Once the "Add" function returns, the "Entry" is now waiting on the "Variable". How the "Add" function ensures that is entirely abstracted away from the consumers of the API.
The implementation of "Add", at least, is synchronized using a very standard spinlock, just like similar operations are for mutexes, semaphores, etc. not just on Haiku, but on all the BSDs and Linux. We don't even need to think about CPU operations ordering for that, the spinlock takes care of it for us.
I am pretty sure Linux (and every other operating system, ever) would be in all kinds of trouble if you could read stale values from memory protected by spinlocks, so I don't know why you are casting doubt on these things.
> It's possible that the vaguely named "atomic" operations in Haiku provide you with adequate ordering
Hey, you already wrote a comment elsewhere in this thread about this point, and I replied to your comment with a bunch of information proving definitively: they do, in fact, provide that ordering. But in the cases I described in the parent comment here, it does not matter, because here we are talking about API consumption, not implementation.
You seem to think this is a joke, but it isn't. Obviously from the CPU's point of view there is no "time travel" but that's cold comfort for users. The Alpha doesn't promise that there's any coherent ordering at all unless you've imposed one, which the sequentially consistent atomics Haiku is apparently asking for do.
To get Sequential Consistency you're paying a very high price on such weakly ordered architectures. On x86 (and x86-64) the relative price is smaller, because everybody is paying for Acquire-release basically all the time, but it's still substantial on larger modern systems.
This price isn't unique to Haiku, but the choice to pay it (almost) everywhere is, at least in terms of operating systems people would be using today.
Yes. But why did you bring this up in this thread about API usage? It's the implementation's problem to make this work out. "Add()" should be the equivalent of a full memory barrier (at least for the condition variable's memory) no matter how that happens internally.
> This price isn't unique to Haiku, but the choice to pay it (almost) everywhere is, at least in terms of operating systems people would be using today.
Haiku is, in many ways, poorly optimized when compared on such details with Linux or FreeBSD, all the developers know this fact, and we make no secret of it. If this was your entire point in the first place, why not just say so?
By the way, as far as I can tell, OpenBSD's kernel atomics (sys/atomic.h) do not have different versions for different memory orderings; in fact they use the older-style GCC builtins and not the C++11-style ones, so they are also using sequential consistency everywhere they use atomics. Is OpenBSD not a "modern operating system people would be using today"?
If you're Linus Torvalds you can insist compiler vendors adjust things as you prefer to some extent, thus the Linux memory model isn't quite the C++ 11 memory model despite the fact that GCC is used to compile Linux and GCC notionally confirms to C11 (and thus has the C++ 11 memory model), much of what Linux does is not conforming to the ISO document. Haiku can't expect the same benefit of the doubt.
The question of whether Haiku needs sequential consistency where it has it is vexed. Hyrum's law applies. The least scary approach might be to follow C++ and provide sequential consistency by default with an opt-out, then introduce use of the opt-out carefully.
Operating systems are often written in C or C++. Both of these share a formal memory model to provide a set of useful semantics for well-formed programs. For most code the choice to adhere to this model is the right one. In fact, in many cases it can be appropriate to pick more "heavyweight" constructs despite the fact that they can be a bit slower because they are easier to reason about. LLVM's libc used sequential consistency for its shared_ptr implementation for quite a while until it was updated to use a more efficient set of primitives.
On the flip side, sometimes it is not appropriate to use this memory model. Linux has its own because it predates the C(++)11 memory model. Other good reasons to use your own model can be if the standard one doesn't efficiently map to what you are trying to do on the hardware you're on, or if the operations you need to perform are not encoded in the standard. These kinds of things are actually quite common in operating systems, which is why most of them do not strictly conform: C11 has no concept if "this region of code runs with interrupts disabled" or "I need a full serializing barrier for device memory". Haiku chooses to do its own thing, which may or may not be appropriate for its use case. Coming in and claiming immediately that whatever it's doing must be bad is inappropriate and lacks context.
