Both compare-and-swap (CAS) and LR/SC can be used to build lock-free data structures. After extensive discussion, we opted for LR/SC for several reasons: 1) CAS suffers from the ABA problem, which LR/SC avoids because it monitors all writes to the address rather than only checking for changes in the data value; 2) CAS would also require a new integer instruction format to support three source operands (address, compare value, swap value) as well as a different memory system message format, which would complicate microarchitectures; 3) Furthermore, to avoid the ABA problem, other systems provide a double-wide CAS (DW-CAS) to allow a counter to be tested and incremented along with a data word. This requires reading five registers and writing two in one instruction, and also a new larger memory system message type, further complicating implementations; 4) LR/SC provides a more efficient implementation of many primitives as it only requires one load as opposed to two with CAS (one load before the CAS instruction to obtain a value for speculative computation, then a second load as part of the CAS instruction to check if value is unchanged before updating).

The main disadvantage of LR/SC over CAS is livelock, which we avoid, under certain circumstances, with an architected guarantee of eventual forward progress as described below. Another concern is whether the influence of the current x86 architecture, with its DW-CAS, will complicate porting of synchronization libraries and other software that assumes DW-CAS is the basic machine primitive. A possible mitigating factor is the recent addition of transactional memory instructions to x86, which might cause a move away from DW-CAS.

More generally, a multi-word atomic primitive is desirable, but there is still considerable debate about what form this should take, and guaranteeing forward progress adds complexity to a system.

We reserve a failure code of 1 to mean ''unspecified'' so that simple implementations may return this value using the existing mux required for the SLT/SLTU instructions. More specific failure codes might be defined in future versions or extensions to the ISA.

Emulating misaligned LR/SC sequences is impractical in most systems.

Misaligned LR/SC sequences also raise the possibility of accessing multiple reservation sets at once, which present definitions do not provide for.

Following this model, in systems with memory translation, an SC is allowed to succeed if the earlier LR reserved the same location using an alias with a different virtual address, but is also allowed to fail if the virtual address is different.

To accommodate legacy devices and buses, writes from devices other than RISC-V harts are only required to invalidate reservations when they overlap the bytes accessed by the LR. These writes are not required to invalidate the reservation when they access other bytes in the reservation set.

The platform should provide a means to determine the size and shape of the reservation set.

A platform specification may constrain the size and shape of the reservation set.

A store-conditional instruction to a scratch word of memory should be used to forcibly invalidate any existing load reservation:

The invalidation of a hart’s reservation when it executes an LR or SC imply that a hart can only hold one reservation at a time, and that an SC can only pair with the most recent LR, and LR with the next following SC, in program order. This is a restriction to the Atomicity Axiom in [rvwmo] that ensures software runs correctly on expected common implementations that operate in this manner.

The LR/SC sequence can be given acquire semantics by setting the aq bit on the LR instruction. The LR/SC sequence can be given release semantics by by setting the rl bit on the SC instruction. Assuming suitable mappings for other atomic operations, setting the aq bit on the LR instruction, and setting the rl bit on the SC instruction makes the LR/SC sequence sequentially consistent in the C++ memory_order_seq_cst sense. Such a sequence does not act as a fence for ordering ordinary load and store instructions before and after the sequence. Specific instruction mappings for other C++ atomic operations, or stronger notions of "sequential consistency", may require both bits to be set on either or both of the LR or SC instruction.

If neither bit is set on either LR or SC, the LR/SC sequence can be observed to occur before or after surrounding memory operations from the same RISC-V hart. This can be appropriate when the LR/SC sequence is used to implement a parallel reduction operation.

We restricted the length of LR/SC loops to fit within 64 contiguous instruction bytes in the base ISA to avoid undue restrictions on instruction cache and TLB size and associativity. Similarly, we disallowed other loads and stores within the loops to avoid restrictions on data-cache associativity in simple implementations that track the reservation within a private cache. The restrictions on branches and jumps limit the time that can be spent in the sequence. Floating-point operations and integer multiply/divide were disallowed to simplify the operating system’s emulation of these instructions on implementations lacking appropriate hardware support.

Software is not forbidden from using unconstrained LR/SC sequences, but portable software must detect the case that the sequence repeatedly fails, then fall back to an alternate code sequence that does not rely on an unconstrained LR/SC sequence. Implementations are permitted to unconditionally fail any unconstrained LR/SC sequence.

Note that these definitions permit an implementation to fail an SC instruction occasionally for any reason, provided the aforementioned guarantee is not violated.

As a consequence of the eventuality guarantee, if some harts in an execution environment are executing constrained LR/SC loops, and no other harts or devices in the execution environment execute an unconditional store or AMO to that reservation set, then at least one hart will eventually exit its constrained LR/SC loop. By contrast, if other harts or devices continue to write to that reservation set, it is not guaranteed that any hart will exit its LR/SC loop.

Loads and load-reserved instructions do not by themselves impede the progress of other harts' LR/SC sequences. We note this constraint implies, among other things, that loads and load-reserved instructions executed by other harts (possibly within the same core) cannot impede LR/SC progress indefinitely. For example, cache evictions caused by another hart sharing the cache cannot impede LR/SC progress indefinitely. Typically, this implies reservations are tracked independently of evictions from any shared cache. Similarly, cache misses caused by speculative execution within a hart cannot impede LR/SC progress indefinitely.

These definitions admit the possibility that SC instructions may spuriously fail for implementation reasons, provided progress is eventually made.

One advantage of CAS is that it guarantees that some hart eventually makes progress, whereas an LR/SC atomic sequence could livelock indefinitely on some systems. To avoid this concern, we added an architectural guarantee of livelock freedom for certain LR/SC sequences.

Earlier versions of this specification imposed a stronger starvation-freedom guarantee. However, the weaker livelock-freedom guarantee is sufficient to implement the C11 and C++11 languages, and is substantially easier to provide in some microarchitectural styles.

We provided fetch-and-op style atomic primitives as they scale to highly parallel systems better than LR/SC or CAS. A simple microarchitecture can implement AMOs using the LR/SC primitives, provided the implementation can guarantee the AMO eventually completes. More complex implementations might also implement AMOs at memory controllers, and can optimize away fetching the original value when the destination is x0.

The set of AMOs was chosen to support the C11/C++11 atomic memory operations efficiently, and also to support parallel reductions in memory. Another use of AMOs is to provide atomic updates to memory-mapped device registers (e.g., setting, clearing, or toggling bits) in the I/O space.

The AMOs were designed to implement the C11 and C++11 memory models efficiently. Although the FENCE R, RW instruction suffices to implement the acquire operation and FENCE RW, W suffices to implement release, both imply additional unnecessary ordering as compared to AMOs with the corresponding aq or rl bit set.

We recommend the use of the AMO Swap idiom shown above for both lock acquire and release to simplify the implementation of speculative lock elision. (Rajwar & Goodman, 2001)

The instructions in the "A" extension can be used to provide sequentially consistent loads and stores, but this constrains hardware reordering of memory accesses more than necessary. A C++ sequentially consistent load can be implemented as an LR with aq set. However, the LR/SC eventual success guarantee may slow down concurrent loads from the same effective address. A sequentially consistent store can be implemented as an AMOSWAP that writes the old value to x0 and has rl set. However the superfluous load may impose ordering constraints that are unnecessary for this use case. Specific compilation conventions may require both the aq and rl bits to be set in either or both the LR and AMOSWAP instructions.