From: "funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov)" Date: 2013-04-16T13:42:46+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:54313] [CommonRuby - Feature #8259] Atomic attributes accessors Issue #8259 has been updated by funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov). Comparison is not atomic. It is used to be ensure, we could use value, stored in @ivar for real CAS. Semantic of method at whole doesn't change, cause if comparison fails, then CAS will fail also. ---------------------------------------- Feature #8259: Atomic attributes accessors https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8259#change-38594 Author: funny_falcon (Yura Sokolov) Status: Open Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: Target version: =begin Motivated by this gist (()) and atomic gem I propose Class.attr_atomic which will add methods for atomic swap and CAS: class MyNode attr_accessor :item attr_atomic :successor def initialize(item, successor) @item = item @successor = successor end end node = MyNode.new(i, other_node) # attr_atomic ensures at least #{attr} reader method exists. May be, it should # be sure it does volatile access. node.successor # #{attr}_cas(old_value, new_value) do CAS: atomic compare and swap if node.successor_cas(other_node, new_node) print "there were no interleaving with other threads" end # #{attr}_swap atomically swaps value and returns old value. # It ensures that no other thread interleaves getting old value and setting # new one by cas (or other primitive if exists, like in Java 8) node.successor_swap(new_node) It will be very simple for MRI cause of GIL, and it will use atomic primitives for other implementations. Note: both (({#{attr}_swap})) and (({#{attr}_cas})) should raise an error if instance variable were not explicitly set before. Example for nonblocking queue: (()) Something similar should be proposed for Structs. May be override same method as (({Struct.attr_atomic})) Open question for reader: should (({attr_atomic :my_attr})) ensure that #my_attr reader method exists? Should it guarantee that (({#my_attr})) provides 'volatile' access? May be, (({attr_reader :my_attr})) already ought to provide 'volatile' semantic? May be, semantic of (({@my_attr})) should have volatile semantic (i doubt for that)? =end -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/