A very non-intuitive property of the Alpha processor is that it allows the following behavior:
Initially: p = & x, x = 1, y = 0 Thread 1 Thread 2 -------------------------------- y = 1 | memoryBarrier | i = *p p = & y | -------------------------------- Can result in: i = 0
This behavior means that the reader needs to perform a memory barrier in lazy initialization idioms (e.g., Double-checked locking) and creates issues for synchronization-free immutable objects (e.g., ensuring. that other threads see the correct value for fields of a String object).
Kourosh Gharachorloo wrote a note explaining how it can actually happen on an Alpha multiprocessor:
The anomalous behavior is currently only possible on a 21264-based system. And obviously you have to be using one of our multiprocessor servers. Finally, the chances that you actually see it are very low, yet it is possible.
Here is what has to happen for this behavior to show up. Assume T1 runs on P1 and T2 on P2. P2 has to be caching location y with value 0. P1 does y=1 which causes an “invalidate y” to be sent to P2. This invalidate goes into the incoming “probe queue” of P2; as you will see, the problem arises because this invalidate could theoretically sit in the probe queue without doing an MB on P2. The invalidate is acknowledged right away at this point (i.e., you don’t wait for it to actually invalidate the copy in P2’s cache before sending the acknowledgment). Therefore, P1 can go through its MB. And it proceeds to do the write to p. Now P2 proceeds to read p. The reply for read p is allowed to bypass the probe queue on P2 on its incoming path (this allows replies/data to get back to the 21264 quickly without needing to wait for previous incoming probes to be serviced). Now, P2 can derefence P to read the old value of y that is sitting in its cache (the inval y in P2’s probe queue is still sitting there).
How does an MB on P2 fix this? The 21264 flushes its incoming probe queue (i.e., services any pending messages in there) at every MB. Hence, after the read of P, you do an MB which pulls in the inval to y for sure. And you can no longer see the old cached value for y.
Even though the above scenario is theoretically possible, the chances of observing a problem due to it are extremely minute. The reason is that even if you setup the caching properly, P2 will likely have ample opportunity to service the messages (i.e., inval) in its probe queue before it receives the data reply for “read p”. Nonetheless, if you get into a situation where you have placed many things in P2’s probe queue ahead of the inval to y, then it is possible that the reply to p comes back and bypasses this inval. It would be difficult for you to set up the scenario though and actually observe the anomaly.
The above addresses how current Alpha’s may violate what you have shown. Future Alpha’s can violate it due to other optimizations. One interesting optimization is value prediction.