What are the performance benchmarks of stdatomic in C++?

What are the performance benchmarks of stdatomic in C++?

The performance of stdatomic operations can vary based on the architecture and compiler optimizations. Generally, atomic operations are slower than non-atomic operations due to the necessary memory barriers and potential cache coherence overhead.

Can you provide specific benchmarks for different operations?

Sure! Benchmarks typically show that atomic load and store operations are relatively fast, often comparable to regular loads and stores, while atomic increment and decrement operations can be significantly slower, especially on multi-core systems.

How do these benchmarks compare to other synchronization methods?

Compared to mutexes, stdatomic operations are usually faster for low contention scenarios. However, mutexes can be more efficient under high contention due to their ability to block threads.

What factors should I consider when choosing between stdatomic and mutexes?

Consider the level of contention, the complexity of the operations, and the specific performance characteristics of your target architecture. For low contention, stdatomic is often preferred, while mutexes may be better for high contention.