The atomic instructions, like all instructions, are scheduled per warp. However there is an unspecified pipeline associated with atomics, and the scheduled instruction flow through the pipeline is not guaranteed to be executed in lockstep, for every thread, for every stage through the pipeline. This gives rise to the possibility for your observations.
I believe a simple thought experiment will demonstrate that this must be true: what if 2 threads in the same warp targeted the same location? Clearly every aspect of the processing could not proceed in lockstep. We could extend this thought experiment to the case where we have multiple issue per clock within an SM and even across SMs, to as additional examples.
If the vector length were short enough (16 bytes or less) then it should be possible to accomplish this ("atomic update") simply by having a thread in a warp write an appropriate vector-type quantity, e.g. int4. As long as all threads (regardless of where they are in the grid) are attempting to update a naturally aligned location, the write should not be corrupted by other writes.
However, after discussion in the comments, it seems that OP's goal is to be able to have a warp or threadblock update a vector of some length, without interference from other warps or threadblocks. It seems to me that really what is desired is access control (so that only one warp or threadblock is updating a particular vector at a time) and OP had some code that wasn't working as desired.
This access control can be enforced using an ordinary atomic operation (atomicCAS in the example below) to permit only one "producer" to update a vector at a time.
What follows is an example producer-consumer code, where there are multiple threadblocks that are updating a range of vectors. Each vector "slot" has a "slot control" variable, which is atomically updated to indicate:
- vector is empty
- vector is being filled
- vector is filled, ready for "consumption"
with this 3-level scheme, we can allow for ordinary access to the vector by both consumer and multiple producer workers, with a single ordinary atomic variable access mechanism. Here is an example code:
#include <assert.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
const int num_slots = 256;
const int slot_length = 32;
const int max_act = 65536;
const int slot_full = 2;
const int slot_filling = 1;
const int slot_empty = 0;
const int max_sm = 64; // needs to be greater than the maximum number of SMs for any GPU that it will be run on
__device__ int slot_control[num_slots] = {0};
__device__ int slots[num_slots*slot_length];
__device__ int observations[max_sm] = {0}; // reported by consumer
__device__ int actives[max_sm] = {0}; // reported by producers
__device__ int correct = 0;
__device__ int block_id = 0;
__device__ volatile int restricted_sm = -1;
__device__ int num_act = 0;
static __device__ __inline__ int __mysmid(){
int smid;
asm volatile("mov.u32 %0, %%smid;" : "=r"(smid));
return smid;}
// this code won't work on a GPU with a single SM!
__global__ void kernel(){
__shared__ volatile int done, update, next_slot;
int my_block_id = atomicAdd(&block_id, 1);
int my_sm = __mysmid();
if (my_block_id == 0){
if (!threadIdx.x){
restricted_sm = my_sm;
__threadfence();
// I am "block 0" and process the vectors, checking for coherency
// "consumer"
next_slot = 0;
volatile int *vslot_control = slot_control;
volatile int *vslots = slots;
int scount = 0;
while(scount < max_act){
if (vslot_control[next_slot] == slot_full){
scount++;
int slot_val = vslots[next_slot*slot_length];
for (int i = 1; i < slot_length; i++) if (slot_val != vslots[next_slot*slot_length+i]) { assert(0); /* badness - incoherence */}
observations[slot_val]++;
vslot_control[next_slot] = slot_empty;
correct++;
__threadfence();
}
next_slot++;
if (next_slot >= num_slots) next_slot = 0;
}
}}
else {
// "producer"
while (restricted_sm < 0); // wait for signaling
if (my_sm == restricted_sm) return;
next_slot = 0;
done = 0;
__syncthreads();
while (!done) {
if (!threadIdx.x){
while (atomicCAS(slot_control+next_slot, slot_empty, slot_filling) > slot_empty) {
next_slot++;
if (next_slot >= num_slots) next_slot = 0;}
// we grabbed an empty slot, fill it with my_sm
if (atomicAdd(&num_act, 1) < max_act) update = 1;
else {done = 1; update = 0;}
}
__syncthreads();
if (update) slots[next_slot*slot_length+threadIdx.x] = my_sm;
__threadfence(); //enforce ordering
if ((update) && (!threadIdx.x)){
slot_control[next_slot] = 2; // mark slot full
atomicAdd(actives+my_sm, 1);}
__syncthreads();
}
}
}
int main(){
kernel<<<256, slot_length>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
cudaError_t res= cudaGetLastError();
if (res != cudaSuccess) printf("kernel failure: %d\n", (int)res);
int *h_obs = new int[max_sm];
int *h_act = new int[max_sm];
int h_correct;
cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(h_obs, observations, sizeof(int)*max_sm);
cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(h_act, actives, sizeof(int)*max_sm);
cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(&h_correct, correct, sizeof(int));
int h_total_act = 0;
int h_total_obs = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < max_sm; i++){
std::cout << h_act[i] << "," << h_obs[i] << " ";
h_total_act += h_act[i];
h_total_obs += h_obs[i];}
std::cout << std::endl << h_total_act << "," << h_total_obs << "," << h_correct << std::endl;
}
I don't claim this code to be defect free for any use case. It is advanced to demonstrate the workability of a concept, not as production-ready code. It seems to work for me on linux, on a couple different systems I tested it on. It should not be run on GPUs that have only a single SM, as one SM is reserved for the consumer, and the remaining SMs are used by the producers.
