Use std atomics #276
Use std atomics #276
Conversation
| @@ -339,8 +332,8 @@ void DumpResultsToFile() { | |||
| struct tm* Tm = gmtime(&Time); | |||
| strftime(UtcDateTime, sizeof(UtcDateTime), "%Y.%m.%d-%H:%M:%S", Tm); | |||
| fprintf(File, "%s,%u,%u,%u,%u,%u,%u,%u,%u\n", UtcDateTime, | |||
| Results.TotalCount, Results.ReachableCount, Results.TooMuchCount, Results.MultiRttCount, Results.RetryCount, | |||
| Results.IPv6Count, Results.Quicv2Count, Results.WayTooMuchCount); | |||
| Results.TotalCount.load(), Results.ReachableCount.load(), Results.TooMuchCount.load(), Results.MultiRttCount.load(), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO always specify the intended memory_order with atomics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the default not acceptable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
memory_order_seq_cst - A load operation with this memory order performs an acquire operation, a store performs a release operation, and read-modify-write performs both an acquire operation and a release operation, plus a single total order exists in which all threads observe all modifications in the same order (see Sequentially-consistent ordering below).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First of all the default std::memory_order_seq_cst is probably not what makes sense here (the default value is the most conservative and lowest performance option) and second of all, it requires the developer look up the default behavior of a C++ routine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You probably want memory_order_relaxed which is the opposite end of the spectrum. The same is true for the overloaded ++ operator: using fetch_add(1) with memory_order_relaxed is more efficient and clearer to developers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is called once for the lifetime of the app. Low perf is fine.
Use the standard library for atomic increments.