Feature #8259
Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) over 9 years ago
=begin Motivated by this gist ((<URL:https://gist.github.com/jstorimer/5298581>)) and atomic gem I propose Class.attr_atomic which will add methods for atomic swap and CAS: ```ruby 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: ((<URL:https://gist.github.com/funny-falcon/5370416>)) 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