Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

true. not roust that way. also, it uses "Go array bounds checking" as the
implicit test for crazy out of range values. just a 5 min stream of
consciousness hack to defend the honor of the Go atomic primitives. ;-) It
was typed one handed while the the other propped up my macbook here in bed.
easily improved.

in fact, i did improve it after sending that original email. i added outer
loops to time repeatedly, and above that, to iterate across numbers of
workers. also added an option to have the workers do a little work between
atomic operations just to see the expected "atomic cost in the noise" by
direct experience...

...works great, scales well.

4cpu+4smt cpus
celeste:atom mtj$ time atom
  1 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments: 18.21601 sec
  2 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  9.44632 sec
  3 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  6.77645 sec
  4 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  5.07302 sec
  5 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  4.54578 sec
  6 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  3.59711 sec
  7 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  3.21376 sec
  8 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  2.98081 sec

18+18
xplum:atom mtj$ time atom
  1 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments: 15.36729 sec
  2 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  8.05586 sec
  3 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  5.71047 sec
  4 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  4.25619 sec
  5 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  3.50413 sec
  6 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  2.95954 sec
  7 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  2.57278 sec
  8 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  2.29949 sec
  9 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  2.14102 sec
 10 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.96580 sec
 11 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.86208 sec
 12 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.75674 sec
 13 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.67355 sec
 14 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.60104 sec
 15 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.55347 sec
 16 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.46876 sec
 17 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.47974 sec
 18 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.46271 sec
 19 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.42377 sec
 20 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.37417 sec
 21 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.38023 sec
 22 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.32782 sec
 23 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.33747 sec
 24 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.27842 sec
 25 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.27863 sec
 26 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.22864 sec
 27 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.21858 sec
 28 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.21807 sec
 29 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.16772 sec
 30 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.15762 sec
 31 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.15192 sec
 32 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.10269 sec
 33 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.09875 sec
 34 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.09120 sec
 35 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.08135 sec
 36 workers, 256 batches of 131072 atomic increments, 33554432 total
increments:  1.09140 sec


On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:14 PM Robert Engels  wrote:

> Sorry, I hadn’t looked at the code, but after reviewing doesn’t your 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Robert Engels]

Sorry, I hadn’t looked at the code, but after reviewing doesn’t your code not 
detect the case where a value was skipped ? (... not that it could happen - but 
for completeness of the robust test)

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 10:44 PM, Michael Jones  wrote:
> 
> not necessary as the testing and updating is only done in one place by one 
> the main goroutine. 
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 7:46 PM Robert Engels  wrote:
>> The updating of the bit array if shared needs to atomic as well, probably 
>> with a read and cas.  
>> 
>>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Liam  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then 
>>> checked for gaps in it?
>>> 
 On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:21:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
 Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go 
 (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code 
 automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
 
 a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
 
 array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
 
 bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<>>> 
 j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
 
 if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
 
 a[n>>3] & mask != 0
 
 to set it is 
 
 a[n>>3] |= mask
 
 the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using 
 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64. 
 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:
> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd 
> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a 
> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
> 
> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to 
> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
> 
> for _, v := range a {
>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1))) 
>   index := v >> 3
> 
>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>   ...
> }
> 
>> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>> 
>> 47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy 
>> synchronization conflict incrementing)
>> 
>> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic 
>> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the 
>> overhead of congested vs not.)
>> 
>> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>> 
>> General idea to remember:
>> 
>> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
>> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, 
>> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>> 
>> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable 
>> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably 
>> expensive operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's 
>> Algorithm). That it is now just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic 
>> progress!
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones  
>>> wrote:
>>> Liam,
>>> 
>>> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make 
>>> you less stressed. ;-)
>>> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>>> 
>>> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>>> celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go
>>> 32 concurrent workers
>>> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
>>> 2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec
>>> 0 collisions
>>> 
>>> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>>> plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go
>>> 32 concurrent workers
>>> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
>>> 2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec
>>> 0 collisions
>>> 
>>> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here 
>>> may increase your comfort.
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
 On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels  
 wrote:
 If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 
 
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
> 
> 
> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a 
> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had 
> misunderstood atomic-add.
> 
> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
> misunderstood my app :-)
> 
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>> 
>>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for 
>>> concurrent callers?
>>> 
>>> I'm guessing not, because (I 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

"Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then
checked for gaps in it?"

Yes. What I should have said. (Though the test looks not for gaps but for
two pigeons in one hole, but the same idea.)

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:44 PM Michael Jones 
wrote:

> not necessary as the testing and updating is only done in one place by one
> the main goroutine.
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 7:46 PM Robert Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> The updating of the bit array if shared needs to atomic as well, probably
>> with a read and cas.
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Liam  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then
>> checked for gaps in it?
>>
>> On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:21:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go
>>> (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code
>>> automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
>>>
>>> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
>>>
>>> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
>>>
>>> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is
>>> "1<>>
>>> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
>>>
>>> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
>>>
>>> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
>>>
>>> to set it is
>>>
>>> a[n>>3] |= mask
>>>
>>> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using
>>> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:
>>>
 I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd
 misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a
 mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.

 But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to
 understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?

 for _, v := range a {
   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1)))
   index := v >> 3

   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
   ...
 }

 On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>
> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>
> *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy
> synchronization conflict incrementing)*
>
> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic
> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the
> overhead of congested vs not.)
>
> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>
> General idea to remember:
>
> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested,
> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>
> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a
> reliable atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a
> remarkably expensive operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish 
> (Dekker's
> Algorithm ). That
> it is now just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Liam,
>>
>> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make
>> you less stressed. ;-)
>> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>>
>> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>>
>> *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>> *32 concurrent workers*
>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>> *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
>> *0 collisions*
>>
>>
>> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>>
>> *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>> *32 concurrent workers*
>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>> *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
>> *0 collisions*
>>
>>
>> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters
>> here may increase your comfort.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
>>> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
>>> misunderstood atomic-add.
>>>
>>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
>>> misunderstood my app :-)
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:

> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for
> concurrent callers?
>
> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers
> 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

not necessary as the testing and updating is only done in one place by one
the main goroutine.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 7:46 PM Robert Engels  wrote:

> The updating of the bit array if shared needs to atomic as well, probably
> with a read and cas.
>
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Liam  wrote:
>
> 
> Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then
> checked for gaps in it?
>
> On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:21:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>>
>> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go
>> (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code
>> automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
>>
>> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
>>
>> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
>>
>> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<>
>> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
>>
>> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
>>
>> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
>>
>> to set it is
>>
>> a[n>>3] |= mask
>>
>> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using
>> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd
>>> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a
>>> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
>>>
>>> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to
>>> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
>>>
>>> for _, v := range a {
>>>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1)))
>>>   index := v >> 3
>>>
>>>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>>>   ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:

 As a follow-up, some more timing:

 *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy
 synchronization conflict incrementing)*

 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic
 update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the
 overhead of congested vs not.)

 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.

 General idea to remember:

 Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
 Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested,
 therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.

 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable
 atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive
 operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm
 ). That it is now
 just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!

 On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones 
 wrote:

> Liam,
>
> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make
> you less stressed. ;-)
> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>
> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>
> *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
> *32 concurrent workers*
> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
> *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
> *0 collisions*
>
>
> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>
> *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
> *32 concurrent workers*
> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
> *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
> *0 collisions*
>
>
> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here
> may increase your comfort.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
>> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
>> misunderstood atomic-add.
>>
>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
>> misunderstood my app :-)
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>>>
 Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for
 concurrent callers?

 I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get
 x+2, neither gets x+1.

>>>
>>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the
>>> incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer
>>> program?
>>>
>>>
 Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a
 mutex required?

>>>
>>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
>>> 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Robert Engels]

The updating of the bit array if shared needs to atomic as well, probably with 
a read and cas.  

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Liam  wrote:
> 
> 
> Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then 
> checked for gaps in it?
> 
>> On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:21:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go 
>> (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code automatically. 
>> Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
>> 
>> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
>> 
>> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
>> 
>> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<> 
>> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
>> 
>> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
>> 
>> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
>> 
>> to set it is 
>> 
>> a[n>>3] |= mask
>> 
>> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using 
>> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64. 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:
>>> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd 
>>> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a 
>>> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
>>> 
>>> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to 
>>> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
>>> 
>>> for _, v := range a {
>>>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1))) 
>>>   index := v >> 3
>>> 
>>>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>>>   ...
>>> }
>>> 
 On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
 As a follow-up, some more timing:
 
 47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy 
 synchronization conflict incrementing)
 
 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic 
 update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the 
 overhead of congested vs not.)
 
 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
 
 General idea to remember:
 
 Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
 Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, 
 therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
 
 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable 
 atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive 
 operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm). That it 
 is now just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones  wrote:
> Liam,
> 
> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make you 
> less stressed. ;-)
> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
> 
> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
> celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go
> 32 concurrent workers
> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
> 2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec
> 0 collisions
> 
> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
> plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go
> 32 concurrent workers
> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
> 2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec
> 0 collisions
> 
> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here 
> may increase your comfort.
> 
> Michael
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels  
>> wrote:
>> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 
>> 
 On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a 
>>> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had 
>>> misunderstood atomic-add.
>>> 
>>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
>>> misunderstood my app :-)
>>> 
 On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
 
> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
> callers?
> 
> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get 
> x+2, neither gets x+1.
 
 That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the 
 incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer 
 program?
   
> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a 
> mutex required?
 
 Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  
 overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really 
 should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on 
 your preferences and performance considerations 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Liam]

Oh you've allocated a bit array for every value in the test range, then 
checked for gaps in it?

On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:21:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>
> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go 
> (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code 
> automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
>
> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
>
> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
>
> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<
> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
>
> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
>
> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
>
> to set it is 
>
> a[n>>3] |= mask
>
> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using 
> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64. 
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam > 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd 
>> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a 
>> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
>>
>> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to 
>> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
>>
>> for _, v := range a {
>>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1))) 
>>   index := v >> 3
>>
>>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>>   ...
>> }
>>
>> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>>>
>>> *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy 
>>> synchronization conflict incrementing)*
>>>
>>> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic 
>>> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the 
>>> overhead of congested vs not.)
>>>
>>> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>>>
>>> General idea to remember:
>>>
>>> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
>>> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, 
>>> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>>>
>>> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable 
>>> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive 
>>> operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm 
>>> ). That it is now 
>>> just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Liam,

 I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make 
 you less stressed. ;-)
 https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V

 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:

 *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
 *32 concurrent workers*
 *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
 *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
 *0 collisions*


 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:

 *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
 *32 concurrent workers*
 *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
 *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
 *0 collisions*


 Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here 
 may increase your comfort.

 Michael

 On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels  
 wrote:

> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 
>
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>
> 
> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a 
> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had 
> misunderstood atomic-add.
>
> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
> misunderstood my app :-)
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>>
>>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for 
>>> concurrent callers?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get 
>>> x+2, neither gets x+1.
>>>
>>
>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the 
>> incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer 
>> program?
>>   
>>
>>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a 
>>> mutex required?
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  
>> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really 
>> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your 
>> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable 
>> to 
>> use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is 
>> fed 
>> by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

agree, makes sense. also if you trust the compiler, change to use the mod
function, etc.

On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 2:31 PM robert engels  wrote:

> I’d prefer v / 8 over v >> 3 - provides more context in my opinion. The
> compiler will change to right shift if more efficient anyway.
>
> On Dec 1, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Michael Jones  wrote:
>
> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go
> (and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code
> automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
>
> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
>
> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
>
> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<
> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
>
> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
>
> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
>
> to set it is
>
> a[n>>3] |= mask
>
> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using
> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64.
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:
>
>> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd
>> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a
>> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
>>
>> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to
>> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
>>
>> for _, v := range a {
>>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1)))
>>   index := v >> 3
>>
>>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>>   ...
>> }
>>
>> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>>>
>>> *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy
>>> synchronization conflict incrementing)*
>>>
>>> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic
>>> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the
>>> overhead of congested vs not.)
>>>
>>> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>>>
>>> General idea to remember:
>>>
>>> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
>>> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested,
>>> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>>>
>>> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable
>>> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive
>>> operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm
>>> ). That it is now
>>> just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Liam,

 I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make
 you less stressed. ;-)
 https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V

 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:

 *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
 *32 concurrent workers*
 *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
 *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
 *0 collisions*


 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:

 *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
 *32 concurrent workers*
 *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
 *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
 *0 collisions*


 Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here
 may increase your comfort.

 Michael

 On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels 
 wrote:

> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.
>
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>
> 
> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
> misunderstood atomic-add.
>
> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
> misunderstood my app :-)
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>>
>>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for
>>> concurrent callers?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get
>>> x+2, neither gets x+1.
>>>
>>
>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the
>> incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer
>> program?
>>
>>
>>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a
>>> mutex required?
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
>> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really
>> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your
>> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable 
>> to
>> use a channel that holds 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[robert engels]

I’d prefer v / 8 over v >> 3 - provides more context in my opinion. The 
compiler will change to right shift if more efficient anyway.

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Michael Jones  wrote:
> 
> Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go (and 
> everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code automatically. Bytes 
> hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so
> 
> a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)
> 
> array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"
> 
> bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1< 
> j is n%8, so "n&(8-1)"
> 
> if mask=1<<(n&(8-1)) then one can test if the bit is set with
> 
> a[n>>3] & mask != 0
> 
> to set it is 
> 
> a[n>>3] |= mask
> 
> the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using 
> 64-bit ints they become 6 and 64. 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  > wrote:
> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd misspent 
> my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a mutex-protected 
> counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
> 
> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to 
> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
> 
> for _, v := range a {
>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1))) 
>   index := v >> 3
> 
>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>   ...
> }
> 
> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
> As a follow-up, some more timing:
> 
> 47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy 
> synchronization conflict incrementing)
> 
> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic update 
> target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the overhead of 
> congested vs not.)
> 
> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
> 
> General idea to remember:
> 
> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, therefore 
> ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
> 
> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable 
> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive 
> operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm 
> ). That it is now just a 
> number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones > wrote:
> Liam,
> 
> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make you 
> less stressed. ;-)
> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V 
> 
> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
> celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go
> 32 concurrent workers
> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
> 2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec
> 0 collisions
> 
> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
> plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go
> 32 concurrent workers
> 128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments
> 2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec
> 0 collisions
> 
> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here may 
> increase your comfort.
> 
> Michael
> 
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels > wrote:
> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a collision 
>> in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had misunderstood 
>> atomic-add.
>> 
>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
>> misunderstood my app :-)
>> 
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam > wrote:
>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
>> callers?
>> 
>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2, 
>> neither gets x+1.
>> 
>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the incorrect 
>> behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer program?
>>   
>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex 
>> required?
>> 
>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  overflow 
>> semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really should be 
>> using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your preferences 
>> and performance considerations you might find it preferable to use a channel 
>> that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed by a producer 
>> goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That makes it 
>> easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they satisfy 
>> other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kurtis Rader
>> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
>> 
>> -- 
>> 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

Oh! That's just a bit per integer in the test range 0..total-1. Since Go
(and everything else) lacks a bit type, I just type such code
automatically. Bytes hold 8 bits. Array size must be rounded up, so

a := make([]byte, (total+8-1)/8)

array index for test integer n is n/8, so "n>>3"

bit index for the j-th bit, counting up from 0 for the 1's place is "1<>3] & mask != 0

to set it is

a[n>>3] |= mask

the values 3 and 8 here are from 8 bits in a byte and 8 = 2**3. if using
64-bit ints they become 6 and 64.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 7:06 PM Liam  wrote:

> I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd
> misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a
> mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.
>
> But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to
> understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?
>
> for _, v := range a {
>   mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1)))
>   index := v >> 3
>
>   if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
>   ...
> }
>
> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>>
>> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>>
>> *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy
>> synchronization conflict incrementing)*
>>
>> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic
>> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the
>> overhead of congested vs not.)
>>
>> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>>
>> General idea to remember:
>>
>> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
>> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested,
>> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>>
>> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable
>> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive
>> operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm
>> ). That it is now
>> just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Liam,
>>>
>>> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make
>>> you less stressed. ;-)
>>> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>>>
>>> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>>>
>>> *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>>> *32 concurrent workers*
>>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>>> *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
>>> *0 collisions*
>>>
>>>
>>> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>>>
>>> *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>>> *32 concurrent workers*
>>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>>> *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
>>> *0 collisions*
>>>
>>>
>>> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here
>>> may increase your comfort.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.

 On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:

 
 The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
 collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
 misunderstood atomic-add.

 So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
 misunderstood my app :-)

 On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>
>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent
>> callers?
>>
>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get
>> x+2, neither gets x+1.
>>
>
> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the
> incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer
> program?
>
>
>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a
>> mutex required?
>>
>
> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really
> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your
> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to
> use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is 
> fed
> by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. 
> That
> makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they
> satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>
> --
> Kurtis Rader
> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
>
 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "golang-nuts" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Liam]

I wrote a less-sophisticated version of your test, then realized I'd 
misspent my time; all I needed was to change the atomic.Add*() to a 
mutex-protected counter, and see whether my app still failed; it did.

But since you took the trouble, I read your code, and would like to 
understand your collision detector. Could you explain this bit?

for _, v := range a {
  mask := byte(1 << (v & (8 - 1))) 
  index := v >> 3

  if tally[index] != 0 { ... }
  ...
}

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 5:33:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote:
>
> As a follow-up, some more timing:
>
> *47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy 
> synchronization conflict incrementing)*
>
> 142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic 
> update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the 
> overhead of congested vs not.)
>
> 426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.
>
> General idea to remember:
>
> Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
> Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, 
> therefore ~9x-10x slower than simple add.
>
> 10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable 
> atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive 
> operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm 
> ). That it is now 
> just a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones  > wrote:
>
>> Liam,
>>
>> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make you 
>> less stressed. ;-)
>> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>>
>> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>>
>> *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>> *32 concurrent workers*
>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>> *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
>> *0 collisions*
>>
>>
>> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>>
>> *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
>> *32 concurrent workers*
>> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
>> *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
>> *0 collisions*
>>
>>
>> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here 
>> may increase your comfort.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels > > wrote:
>>
>>> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam > 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a 
>>> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had 
>>> misunderstood atomic-add.
>>>
>>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
>>> misunderstood my app :-)
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:

> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
> callers?
>
> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get 
> x+2, neither gets x+1.
>

 That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the 
 incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer 
 program?
   

> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a 
> mutex required?
>

 Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  
 overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really 
 should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your 
 preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to 
 use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is 
 fed 
 by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. 
 That 
 makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they 
 satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).

 -- 
 Kurtis Rader
 Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank

>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to golan...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4f62dfff-6895-4aaa-9f0d-b635d5ba7ea7%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to golan...@googlegroups.com .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

As a follow-up, some more timing:

*47088064 atomic increments/sec (my original email above for heavy
synchronization conflict incrementing)*

142049067 atomic increments/sec when each goroutine has its own atomic
update target. (Not testing global synchronization/mutex, just the
overhead of congested vs not.)

426232527 ordinary "x++" increments in the workers.

General idea to remember:

Atomic increment is ~3x slower than simple add when uncontested.
Highly contested atomic increment is ~3x closer than uncontested, therefore
~9x-10x slower than simple add.

10x is not insignificant, but is nevertheless remarkable for a reliable
atomic operation. This was once, "back in the day", a remarkably expensive
operation, an a feat of genius to accomplish (Dekker's Algorithm
). That it is now just
a number-of-fingers cycles is fantastic progress!

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 3:38 PM Michael Jones 
wrote:

> Liam,
>
> I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make you
> less stressed. ;-)
> https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V
>
> 4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:
>
> *celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
> *32 concurrent workers*
> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
> *2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
> *0 collisions*
>
>
> 18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:
>
> *plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
> *32 concurrent workers*
> *128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
> *2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
> *0 collisions*
>
>
> Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here may
> increase your comfort.
>
> Michael
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels 
> wrote:
>
>> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
>> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
>> misunderstood atomic-add.
>>
>> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
>> misunderstood my app :-)
>>
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>>>
 Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent
 callers?

 I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get
 x+2, neither gets x+1.

>>>
>>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the
>>> incorrect behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer
>>> program?
>>>
>>>
 Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex
 required?

>>>
>>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
>>> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really
>>> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your
>>> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to
>>> use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed
>>> by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That
>>> makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they
>>> satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kurtis Rader
>>> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4f62dfff-6895-4aaa-9f0d-b635d5ba7ea7%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/C7B99DEA-D183-44EF-9EDA-0B1841AB9DE5%40ix.netcom.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com *
>


-- 

*Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Michael Jones]

Liam,

I just wrote a little stress test program for you. Maybe it will make you
less stressed. ;-)
https://play.golang.org/p/5_7Geyczd1V

4 CPU 2016 MacBook Pro:

*celeste:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
*32 concurrent workers*
*128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
*2.850 seconds elapsed, 47088064 atomic increments/sec*
*0 collisions*


18 CPU 2019 iMacPro:

*plum:atom mtj$ go run main.go*
*32 concurrent workers*
*128 batches of 1048576 atomic increments, 134217728 total increments*
*2.730 seconds elapsed, 49167382 atomic increments/sec*
*0 collisions*


Exhaustive demonstration is no proof, but changing the parameters here may
increase your comfort.

Michael

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 1:02 PM Robert Engels  wrote:

> If this was broken I think a lot of things would break.
>
> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
>
> 
> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a
> collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had
> misunderstood atomic-add.
>
> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably
> misunderstood my app :-)
>
> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>>
>>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent
>>> callers?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2,
>>> neither gets x+1.
>>>
>>
>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the incorrect
>> behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer program?
>>
>>
>>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex
>>> required?
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
>> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really
>> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your
>> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to
>> use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed
>> by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That
>> makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they
>> satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>>
>> --
>> Kurtis Rader
>> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4f62dfff-6895-4aaa-9f0d-b635d5ba7ea7%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/C7B99DEA-D183-44EF-9EDA-0B1841AB9DE5%40ix.netcom.com
> 
> .
>


-- 

*Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CALoEmQxm4LHW4n5Gs223X2UzVQ0QqBD6ZAx48_jYwve-QjXwmg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Robert Engels]

If this was broken I think a lot of things would break. 

> On Nov 30, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Liam  wrote:
> 
> 
> The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a collision 
> in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had misunderstood 
> atomic-add.
> 
> So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
> misunderstood my app :-)
> 
>> On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>> 
>>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
>>> callers?
>>> 
>>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2, 
>>> neither gets x+1.
>> 
>> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the incorrect 
>> behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer program?
>>   
>>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex 
>>> required?
>> 
>> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  overflow 
>> semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really should be 
>> using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your preferences 
>> and performance considerations you might find it preferable to use a channel 
>> that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed by a producer 
>> goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That makes it 
>> easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they satisfy 
>> other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kurtis Rader
>> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4f62dfff-6895-4aaa-9f0d-b635d5ba7ea7%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/C7B99DEA-D183-44EF-9EDA-0B1841AB9DE5%40ix.netcom.com.

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Liam]

The stress test for my app fails frequently with what looks like a 
collision in atomic.AddUint64() results, so I wondered whether I had 
misunderstood atomic-add.

So far I can't reproduce it with a small program, so I've probably 
misunderstood my app :-)

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 6:41:39 PM UTC-8, Kurtis Rader wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam > 
> wrote:
>
>> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
>> callers?
>>
>> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2, 
>> neither gets x+1.
>>
>
> That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the incorrect 
> behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer program?
>   
>
>> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex 
>> required?
>>
>
> Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement  
> overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really 
> should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your 
> preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to 
> use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed 
> by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That 
> makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they 
> satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).
>
> -- 
> Kurtis Rader
> Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4f62dfff-6895-4aaa-9f0d-b635d5ba7ea7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Kurtis Rader]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Liam  wrote:

> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent
> callers?
>
> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2,
> neither gets x+1.
>

That shouldn't happen, AFAICT. Can you share the code where the incorrect
behavior is occurring? Or, preferably, a simple reproducer program?


> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex
> required?
>

Keep in mind that atomic.AddInt32() has the usual two's-complement
overflow semantics. If all you want is a generation counter you really
should be using a uint32 and atomic.AddUint32(). Also, depending on your
preferences and performance considerations you might find it preferable to
use a channel that holds a single int, or small number of ints, that is fed
by a producer goroutine and consumed by any context needing a uniq ID. That
makes it easier to abstract the generation of "unique" ints so that they
satisfy other constraints (e.g., they must be even, odd, prime, etc.).

-- 
Kurtis Rader
Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CABx2%3DD-ZMmXKE4FANGLH9VnAWbDiM1X4Gf7HfMJvMZVzVNi%3DMA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[burak serdar]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 7:21 PM Liam  wrote:
>
> Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent callers?
>
> I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2, 
> neither gets x+1.

That should not happen, afaik. Do you have code you can share?

>
> Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex 
> required?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/b8cd30f3-effe-4d1d-ac5b-4bb29bbd9a10%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAMV2RqrE17WEUt3p-nwWcMUyrvLa-LoLuYgfRzr87MyOh%2BitSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[go-nuts] atomic.Add*() doesn't produce unique values

[Liam]

Does atomic.AddInt32(, 1) always yield unique values for concurrent 
callers?

I'm guessing not, because (I think) I'm seeing that two callers get x+2, 
neither gets x+1.

Is there a way to generate unique values with pkg atomic, or is a mutex 
required?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/b8cd30f3-effe-4d1d-ac5b-4bb29bbd9a10%40googlegroups.com.