RFR: 8360654: AArch64: Remove redundant dmb from C1 compareAndSet

[Samuel Chee]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:13:19 GMT, Samuel Chee <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

> AtomicLong.CompareAndSet has the following assembly dump snippet which gets emitted from the intermediary LIRGenerator::atomic_cmpxchg:
> 
> ;; cmpxchg {
>   0x0000e708d144cf60:   mov	x8, x2
>   0x0000e708d144cf64:   casal	x8, x3, [x0]
>   0x0000e708d144cf68:   cmp	x8, x2
>  ;; 0x1F1F1F1F1F1F1F1F
>   0x0000e708d144cf6c:   mov	x8, #0x1f1f1f1f1f1f1f1f
>  ;; } cmpxchg
>   0x0000e708d144cf70:   cset	x8, ne  // ne = any
>   0x0000e708d144cf74:   dmb	ish
> 
> 
> According to the Oracle Java Specification, AtomicLong.CompareAndSet [1] has the same memory effects as specified by VarHandle.compareAndSet which has the following effects: [2]
> 
>> Atomically sets the value of a variable to the
>> newValue with the memory semantics of setVolatile if
>> the variable's current value, referred to as the witness
>> value, == the expectedValue, as accessed with the memory
>> semantics of getVolatile.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the release on the store due to setVolatile only occurs if the compare is successful. Since casal already satisfies these requirements, the dmb does not need to occur to ensure memory ordering in case the compare fails and a release does not happen.
> 
> Hence we remove the dmb from both casl and casw (same logic applies to the non-long variant)
> 
> This is also reflected by C2 not having a dmb for the same respective method.
> 
> [1] https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/24/docs/api/java.base/java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicLong.html#compareAndSet(long,long)
> [2] https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/24/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/invoke/VarHandle.html#compareAndSet(java.lang.Object...)

I can double check with the herd7 simulator, but since the `casal` will always produce an acquire, to me it seems impossible that a load can be moved before the `casal` due the acquire within the `casal`.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26000#issuecomment-3012781394