x86 mfence and C++ memory barrier - c++11

Question

I'm checking how the compiler emits instructions for multi-core memory barriers on x86_64. The below code is the one I'm testing using gcc_x86_64_8.3.
std::atomic<bool> flag {false};
int any_value {0};
void set()
{
any_value = 10;
flag.store(true, std::memory_order_release);
}
void get()
{
while (!flag.load(std::memory_order_acquire));
assert(any_value == 10);
}
int main()
{
std::thread a {set};
get();
a.join();
}
When I use std::memory_order_seq_cst, I can see the MFENCE instruction is used with any optimization -O1, -O2, -O3. This instruction makes sure the store buffers are flushed, therefore updating their data in L1D cache (and using MESI protocol to make sure other threads can see effect).
However when I use std::memory_order_release/acquire with no optimizations MFENCE instruction is also used, but the instruction is omitted using -O1, -O2, -O3 optimizations, and not seeing other instructions that flush the buffers.
In the case where MFENCE is not used, what makes sure the store buffer data is committed to cache memory to ensure the memory order semantics?
Below is the assembly code for the get/set functions with -O3, like what we get on the Godbolt compiler explorer:
set():
mov DWORD PTR any_value[rip], 10
mov BYTE PTR flag[rip], 1
ret
.LC0:
.string "/tmp/compiler-explorer-compiler119218-62-hw8j86.n2ft/example.cpp"
.LC1:
.string "any_value == 10"
get():
.L8:
movzx eax, BYTE PTR flag[rip]
test al, al
je .L8
cmp DWORD PTR any_value[rip], 10
jne .L15
ret
.L15:
push rax
mov ecx, OFFSET FLAT:get()::__PRETTY_FUNCTION__
mov edx, 17
mov esi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC1
call __assert_fail

Answer 1

The x86 memory ordering model provides #StoreStore and #LoadStore barriers for all store instructions1, which is all what the release semantics require. Also the processor will commit a store instruction as soon as possible; when the store instruction retires, the store becomes the oldest in the store buffer, the core has the target cache line in a writeable coherence state, and a cache port is available to perform the store operation2. So there is no need for an MFENCE instruction. The flag will become visible to the other thread as soon as possible and when it does, any_value is guaranteed to be 10.
On the other hand, sequential consistency also requires #StoreLoad and #LoadLoad barriers. MFENCE is required to provide both3 barriers and so it is used at all optimization levels.
Related: Size of store buffers on Intel hardware? What exactly is a store buffer?.
Footnotes:
(1) There are exceptions that don't apply here. In particular, non-temporal stores and stores to the uncacheable write-combining memory types provide only the #LoadStore barrier. Anyway, these barriers are provided for stores to the write-back memory type on both Intel and AMD processors.
(2) This is in contrast to write-combining stores which are made globally-visible under certain conditions. See Section 11.3.1 of the Intel manual Volume 3.
(3) See the discussion under Peter's answer.

Answer 2

x86's TSO memory model is sequential-consistency + a store buffer, so only seq-cst stores need any special fencing. (Stalling after a store until the store buffer drains, before later loads, is all we need to recover sequential consistency). The weaker acq/rel model is compatible with the StoreLoad reordering caused by a store buffer.
(See discussion in comments re: whether "allowing StoreLoad reordering" is an accurate and sufficient description of what x86 allows. A core always sees its own stores in program order because loads snoop the store buffer, so you could say that store-forwarding also reorders loads of recently-stored data. Except you can't always: Globally Invisible load instructions)
(And BTW, compilers other than gcc use xchg to do a seq-cst store. This is actually more efficient on current CPUs. GCC's mov+mfence might have been cheaper in the past, but is currently usually worse even if you don't care about the old value. See Why does a std::atomic store with sequential consistency use XCHG? for a comparison between GCC's mov+mfence vs. xchg. Also my answer on Which is a better write barrier on x86: lock+addl or xchgl?)
Fun fact: you can achieve sequential consistency by instead fencing seq-cst loads instead of stores. But cheap loads are much more valuable than cheap stores for most use-cases, so everyone uses ABIs where the full barriers go on the stores.
See https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/cpp/cpp0xmappings.html for details of how C++11 atomic ops map to asm instruction sequences for x86, PowerPC, ARMv7, ARMv8, and Itanium. Also When are x86 LFENCE, SFENCE and MFENCE instructions required?
when I use std::memory_order_release/acquire with no optimizations MFENCE instruction is also used
That's because flag.store(true, std::memory_order_release); doesn't inline, because you disabled optimization. That includes inlining of very simple member functions like atomic::store(T, std::memory_order = std::memory_order_seq_cst)
When the ordering parameter to the __atomic_store_n() GCC builtin is a runtime variable (in the atomic::store() header implementation), GCC plays it conservative and promotes it to seq_cst.
It might actually be worth it for gcc to branch over mfence because it's so expensive, but that's not what we get. (But that would make larger code-size for functions with runtime variable order params, and the code path might not be hot. So branching is probably only a good idea in the libatomic implementation, or with profile-guided optimization for rare cases where a function is large enough to not inline but takes a variable order.)