C++ spin-lock can be easily implemented using std::atomic_flag, it can be coded roughly (without special features) like following:
std::atomic_flag f = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT;
while (f.test_and_set(std::memory_order_acquire)); // Acquire lock
// Here do some lock-protected work .....
f.clear(std::memory_order_release); // Release lock
One can see online assembly, it shows that acquiring is implemented atomically through XCHG instruction.
Also as one can see on uops.info (screen here) that XCHG may take up to 30 CPU cycles on quite popular Skylake. This is quite slow.
Overall speed of spin lock can be measure through such program.
Is it possible to implement spin locking without XCHG? Main concern is about speed, not about just using another instruction.
What is the fastest possible spin lock? Is it possible to make it 10 cycles instead of 30? And 5 cycles? Maybe some probabilistic spin-lock that runs fast on average?
It should be implemented in a strict way, meaning that in 100% cases it correctly protects piece of code and data. If it is probabilistic then it should run probable time but yet protects 100% correctly after each run.
Main purpose for such spin lock for me is to protect very tiny operations inside multiple threads, that run a dozen or two of cycles, hence 30 cycles delay is too much overhead. Of course one can say that I can use atomics or other lock-free techniques to implement all operations. But this techniques is not possible for all cases, and also will take to much work to strictly implement in huge code base for many classes and methods. Hence something generic like regular spin lock is also needed.
Is it possible to implement spin locking without XCHG?
Yes. For 80x86, you can lock bts or lock cmpxchg or lock xadd or ...
What is the fastest possible spin lock?
Possible interpretations of "fast" include:
a) Fast in the uncontended case. In this case it's not going to matter very much what you do because most of the possible operations (exchanging, adding, testing...) are cheap and the real costs are cache coherency (getting the cache line containing the lock into the "exclusive" state in the current CPU's cache, possibly including fetching it from RAM or other CPUs' caches) and serialization.
b) Fast in the contended case. In this case you really need a "test without lock; then test & set with lock" approach. The main problem with a simple spinloop (for the contended case) is that when multiple CPUs are spinning the cache line will be rapidly bouncing from one CPU's cache to the next and consuming a huge amount of inter-connect bandwidth for nothing. To prevent this, you'd have a loop that tests the lock state without modifying it so that the cache line can remain in all CPUs caches as "shared" at the same time while those CPUs are spinning.
But note that testing read-only to start with can hurt the un-contended case, resulting in more coherency traffic: first a share-request for the cache line which will only get you MESI S state if another core had recently unlocked, and then an RFO (Read For Ownership) when you do try to take the lock. So best practice is probably to start with an RMW, and if that fails then spin read-only with pause until you see the lock available, unless profiling your code on the system you care about shows a different choice is better.
c) Fast to exit the spinloop (after contention) when the lock is acquired. In this case CPU can speculatively execute many iterations of the loop, and when the lock becomes acquired all the CPU has to drain those "speculatively execute many iterations of the loop" which costs a little time. To prevent that you want a pause instruction to prevent many iterations of the loop/s from being speculatively executed.
d) Fast for other CPUs that don't touch the lock. For some cases (hyper-threading) the core's resources are shared between logical processors; and when one logical process is spinning it consumes resources that the other logical processor could've used to get useful work done (especially for the "spinlock speculatively executes many iterations of the loop" situation). To minimize this you need a pause in the spinloop/s (so that the spinning logical processor doesn't consume as much of the core's resources and the other logical processor in the core can get more useful work done).
e) Minimum "worst case time to acquire". With a simple lock, under contention, some CPUs or threads can be lucky and always get the lock while other CPUs/threads are very unlucky and take ages to get the lock; and the "worst case time to acquire" is theoretically infinite (a CPU can spin forever). To fix that you need a fair lock - something to ensure that only the thread that has been waiting/spinning for the longest amount of time is able to acquire the lock when it is released. Note that it's possible to design a fair lock such that each thread spins on a different cache line; which is a different way to solve the "cache line bouncing between CPUs" problem I mentioned in "b) Fast in the contended case".
f) Minimum "worst case until lock released". This has to involve the length of the worst critical section; but in some situations may also include the cost of any number IRQs, the cost of any number of task switches and the time the code isn't using any CPU. It's entirely possible to have a situation where a thread acquires the lock then the scheduler does a thread switch; then many CPUs all spin (wasting a huge amount of time) on a lock that can not be released (because the lock holder is the only one that can release the lock and it isn't even using any CPU). The way to fix/improve this is to disable the scheduler and IRQs; which is fine in kernel code, but "likely impossible for security reasons" in normal user-space code. This is also the reason why spinlocks should probably never be used in user-space (and why user-space should probably use a mutex where the thread is put in a "blocked waiting for lock" state and not given CPU time by the scheduler until/unless the thread actually can acquire the lock).
Note that making it fast for one possible interpretation of "fast" can make it slower/worse for other interpretations of "fast". For example; the speed of the uncontended case is made worse by everything else.
Example Spinlock
This example is untested, and written in (NASM syntax) assembly.
;Input
; ebx = address of lock
;Initial optimism in the hope the lock isn't contended
spinlock_acquire:
lock bts dword [ebx],0 ;Set the lowest bit and get its previous value in carry flag
;Did we actually acquire it, i.e. was it previously 0 = unlocked?
jnc .acquired ; Yes, done!
;Waiting (without modifying) to avoid "cache line bouncing"
.spin:
pause ;Reduce resource consumption
; and avoid memory order mis-speculation when the lock becomes available.
test dword [ebx],1 ;Has the lock been released?
jne .spin ; no, wait until it was released
;Try to acquire again
lock bts dword [ebx],0 ;Set the lowest bit and get its previous value in carry flag
;Did we actually acquire it?
jc .spin ; No, go back to waiting
.acquired:
Spin-unlock can be just mov dword [ebx], 0, not lock btr, because you know you own the lock and that has release semantics on x86. You could read it first to catch double-unlock bugs.
Notes:
a) lock bts is a little slower than other possibilities; but it doesn't interfere with or depend on the other 31 bits (or 63 bits) of the lock, which means that those other bits can be used for detecting programming mistakes (e.g. store 31 bits of "thread ID that currently holds lock" in them when the lock is acquired and check them when the lock is released to auto-detect "Wrong thread releasing lock" and "Lock being released when it was never acquired" bugs) and/or used for gathering performance information (e.g. set bit 1 when there's contention so that other code can scan periodically to determine which locks are rarely contended and which locks are heavily contended). Bugs with the use of locks are often extremely insidious and hard to find (unpredictable and unreproducible "Heisenbugs" that disappear as soon as you try to find them); so I have a preference for "slower with automatic bug detection".
b) This is not a fair lock, which means its not well suited to situations where contention is likely.
c) For memory; there's a compromise between memory consumption/cache misses, and false sharing. For rarely contended locks I like to put the lock in the same cache line/s as the data the lock protects, so that the acquiring the lock means that the data the lock holder wants is already in the cache (and no subsequent cache miss occurs). For heavily contended locks this causes false sharing and should be avoided by reserving the whole cache line for the lock and nothing else (e.g. by adding 60 bytes of unused padding after the 4 bytes used by the actual lock, like in C++ alignas(64) struct { std::atomic<int> lock; }; ). Of course a spinlock like this shouldn't be used for heavily contended locks so its reasonable to assume that minimizing memory consumption (and not having any padding, and not caring about false sharing) makes sense.
Main purpose for such spin lock for me is to protect very tiny operations inside multiple threads, that run a dozen or two of cycles, hence 30 cycles delay is too much overhead
In that case I'd suggest trying to replace locks with atomics, block-free algorithms, and lock-free algorithms. A trivial example is tracking statistics, where you might want to do lock inc dword [number_of_chickens] instead of acquiring a lock to increase "number_of_chickens".
Beyond that it's hard to say much - for one extreme, the program could be spending most of its time doing work without needing locks and the cost of locking may have almost no impact on overall performance (even though acquire/release is more expensive than the tiny critical sections); and for the other extreme the program could be spending most of its time acquiring and releasing locks. In other words, the cost of acquiring/releasing locks is somewhere between "irrelevant" and "major design flaw (using far too many locks and needing to redesign the entire program)".