synchronizing device memory access with host thread - cuda

Is it possible for a CUDA kernel to synchronize writes to device-mapped memory without any host-side invocation (e.g., of cudaDeviceSynchronize)? When I run the following program, it doesn't seem that the kernel waits for the writes to device-mapped memory to complete before terminating because examining the page-locked host memory immediately after the kernel launch does not show any modification of the memory (unless a delay is inserted or the call to cudaDeviceSynchronize is uncommented):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <cuda.h>
__global__ void func(int *a, int N) {
int idx = threadIdx.x;
if (idx < N) {
a[idx] *= -1;
__threadfence_system();
}
}
int main(void) {
int *a, *a_gpu;
const int N = 8;
size_t size = N*sizeof(int);
cudaSetDeviceFlags(cudaDeviceMapHost);
cudaHostAlloc((void **) &a, size, cudaHostAllocMapped);
cudaHostGetDevicePointer((void **) &a_gpu, (void *) a, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
a[i] = i;
}
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
printf("%i ", a[i]);
}
printf("\n");
func<<<1, N>>>(a_gpu, N);
// cudaDeviceSynchronize();
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
printf("%i ", a[i]);
}
printf("\n");
cudaFreeHost(a);
}
I'm compiling the above for sm_20 with CUDA 4.2.9 on Linux and running it on a Fermi GPU (S2050).

A kernel launch will immediately return to the host code before any kernel activity has occurred. Kernel execution is in this way asynchronous to host execution and does not block host execution. So it's no surprise that you have to wait a bit or else use a barrier (like cudaDeviceSynchronize()) to see the results of the kernel.
As described here:
In order to facilitate concurrent execution between host and device,
some function calls are asynchronous: Control is returned to the host
thread before the device has completed the requested task. These are:
Kernel launches;
Memory copies between two addresses to the same device memory;
Memory copies from host to device of a memory block of 64 KB or less;
Memory copies performed by functions that are suffixed with Async;
Memory set function calls.
This is all intentional of course, so that you can use the GPU and CPU simultaneously. If you don't want this behavior, a simple solution as you've already discovered is to insert a barrier. If your kernel is producing data which you will immediately copy back to the host, you don't need a separate barrier. The cudaMemcpy call after the kernel will wait until the kernel is completed before it begins it's copy operation.
I guess to answer your question, you are wanting kernel launches to be synchronous without you having even to use a barrier (why do you want to do this? Is adding the cudaDeviceSynchronize() call a problem?) It's possible to do this:
"Programmers can globally disable asynchronous kernel launches for all
CUDA applications running on a system by setting the
CUDA_LAUNCH_BLOCKING environment variable to 1. This feature is
provided for debugging purposes only and should never be used as a way
to make production software run reliably. "
If you want this synchronous behavior, it's better just to use the barriers (or depend on another subsequent cuda call, like cudaMemcpy). If you use the above method and depend on it, your code will break as soon as somebody else tries to run it without the environment variable set. So it's really not a good idea.

Related

Is there proper CUDA atomicLoad function?

I've faced with the issue that CUDA atomic API do not have atomicLoad function.
After searching on stackoverflow, I've found the following implementation of CUDA atomicLoad
But looks like this function is failed to work in following example:
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <cuda_runtime_api.h>
template <typename T>
__device__ T atomicLoad(const T* addr) {
const volatile T* vaddr = addr; // To bypass cache
__threadfence(); // for seq_cst loads. Remove for acquire semantics.
const T value = *vaddr;
// fence to ensure that dependent reads are correctly ordered
__threadfence();
return value;
}
__global__ void initAtomic(unsigned& count, const unsigned initValue) {
count = initValue;
}
__global__ void addVerify(unsigned& count, const unsigned biasAtomicValue) {
atomicAdd(&count, 1);
// NOTE: When uncomment the following while loop the addVerify is stuck,
// it cannot read last proper value in variable count
// while (atomicLoad(&count) != (1024 * 1024 + biasAtomicValue)) {
// printf("count = %u\n", atomicLoad(&count));
// }
}
int main() {
std::cout << "Hello, CUDA atomics!" << std::endl;
const auto atomicSize = sizeof(unsigned);
unsigned* datomic = nullptr;
cudaMalloc(&datomic, atomicSize);
cudaStream_t stream;
cudaStreamCreate(&stream);
constexpr unsigned biasAtomicValue = 11;
initAtomic<<<1, 1, 0, stream>>>(*datomic, biasAtomicValue);
addVerify<<<1024, 1024, 0, stream>>>(*datomic, biasAtomicValue);
cudaStreamSynchronize(stream);
unsigned countHost = 0;
cudaMemcpyAsync(&countHost, datomic, atomicSize, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost, stream);
assert(countHost == 1024 * 1024 + biasAtomicValue);
cudaStreamDestroy(stream);
return 0;
}
If you will uncomment the section with atomicLoad then application will stuck ...
Maybe I missed something ? Is there a proper way to load variable modified atomically ?
P.S.: I know there exists cuda::atomic implementation, but this API is not supported by my hardware
Since warps work in a lockstep manner (at least in old arch), if you put a conditional wait for one thread and a producer on another thread, both in same warp, then the warp could be stuck in the waiting if it starts/is executed first. Maybe only newest architecture that has asynchronous warp thread scheduling can do this. For example, you should query minor-major versions of cuda architecture before running this. Volta and onwards is ok.
Also you are launching 1million threads and waiting on all of them at once. GPU may not have that many execution ports/pipeline availability to have 1 million threads in-flight. Maybe it would work in only a GPU of 64k CUDA pipelines (assuming 16 threads in flight per pipeline). Instead of waiting on millions of threads, just spawn sub-kernels from main kernel when a condition occurs. Dynamic parallelism is the key feature. You should also check for the minimum minor-major cuda version to use dynamic parallelism just in case someone is using ancient nvidia cards.
Atomic-add command returns the old value in the target address. If you have meant to call a third kernel only once only after the condition, then you can simply check that returned value by an "if" before starting the dynamic parallelism.
You are printing for 1 million times, it is not good for performance and it may take some time before text appears in console output if you have a slow CPU/RAM.
Lastly, you can optimize performance of atomic operations by running them on shared memory first then going global atomic only once per block. This will miss the point of condition if there are more threads than the condition value (assuming always 1 increment value) so it may not be applicable for all algorithms.

CUDA stream is blocked when launching many kernels (>1000)

I found that CUDA stream will block when I launch lots of kernels (more than 1000). I am wondering is there any configuration that I can change?
In my experiments, I launch a small kernel 10000 times. This kernel ran shortly (about 190us). The kernel launched very fast when launching the first 1000 kernels. It takes 4~5us to launch a kernel. But after that, The launch process becomes slow. It takes about 190us to launch a new kernel. The CUDA stream seems to wait for the previous kernel complete and the buffer size is about 1000 kernel.
When I created 3 streams, each stream can launch 1000 kernel asynchrony.
I want to make this buffer bigger. I try to set cudaLimitDevRuntimePendingLaunchCount, but it does not work. Is there any way?
#include <stdio.h>
#include "cuda_runtime.h"
#define CUDACHECK(cmd) do { \
cudaError_t e = cmd; \
if (e != cudaSuccess) { \
printf("Failed: Cuda error %s:%d '%s'\n", \
__FILE__,__LINE__,cudaGetErrorString(e)); \
exit(EXIT_FAILURE); \
} \
} while (0)
// a dummy kernel for test
__global__ void add(float *a, int n) {
int id = threadIdx.x + blockIdx.x * blockDim.x;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
a[id] = sqrt(a[id] + 1);
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
// managing 1 devices
int nDev = 1;
int nStream = 1;
int size = 32*1024*1024;
// allocating and initializing device buffers
float** buffer = (float**)malloc(nDev * sizeof(float*));
cudaStream_t* s = (cudaStream_t*)malloc(sizeof(cudaStream_t)*nDev*nStream);
for (int i = 0; i < nDev; ++i) {
CUDACHECK(cudaSetDevice(i));
// CUDACHECK(cudaDeviceSetLimit(cudaLimitDevRuntimePendingLaunchCount, 10000));
CUDACHECK(cudaMalloc(buffer + i, size * sizeof(float)));
CUDACHECK(cudaMemset(buffer[i], 1, size * sizeof(float)));
for (int j = 0; j < nStream; j++) {
CUDACHECK(cudaStreamCreate(s+i*nStream+j));
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < nDev; ++i) {
CUDACHECK(cudaSetDevice(i));
for (int j=0; j < 10000; j++) {
for (int k=0; k < nStream; k++) {
add<<<32, 1024, 0, s[i*nStream+k]>>>(buffer[i], 1000);
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < nDev; ++i) {
CUDACHECK(cudaSetDevice(i));
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
}
// free device buffers
for (int i = 0; i < nDev; ++i) {
CUDACHECK(cudaSetDevice(i));
CUDACHECK(cudaFree(buffer[i]));
}
printf("Success \n");
return 0;
}
Here is the nvprof results:
When I create 3 streams, the first 3000 kernel launched quickly and then become slow
When I create 1 streams, the first 1000 kernel launched quickly and then become slow
The behavior you are witnessing is expected behavior. If you search on the cuda tag for "queue" or "launch queue" you will find many other questions that refer to it. CUDA has a queue (apparently per-stream) that kernel launches go into. As long as the outstanding launch count is less than the queue depth, the launch process will be asynchronous.
However when the outstanding (i.e. uncompleted) launches exceed the queue depth, the launch process changes to a kind of synchronous behavior (although not synchronous in the usual sense). Specifically, when the outstanding number of kernel launches exceeds the queue depth, the launch process will block the CPU thread that is performing the next launch, until a launch slot opens in the queue (effectively means a kernel has retired at the other end of the queue).
You have no visibility into this (no way to query the number of slots open in the queue) nor any way to view or control the queue depth. Most of the information I'm reciting here is obtained by inspection; it is not formally published in CUDA documentation that I am aware of.
As already discussed in the comments, one possible approach to alleviate your concern around launches in a multi-device scenario is to launch breadth-first rather than depth-first. By this I mean that you should modify your launch loops so that you launch a kernel to device 0, then device 1, then device 2, etc. before launching the next kernel on device 0. This will give you the optimum performance in the sense that all GPUs will be engaged with processing, as early as possible in the launch sequence.
If you'd like to see changes in CUDA behavior or documentation, the general suggestion is to become a registered developer at developer.nvidia.com, then log into your account there and file a bug, using the bug filing process accessible by clicking on your account name in the upper right hand corner.

cudaStreamAddCallback doesn't block later cudaMemcpyAsync

I am trying to let cudaMemcpyHost2Device wait for some specific event by using cudaStreamAddCallback. And I found the comments about cudaStreamCallback API
The callback will block later work in the stream until it is finished.
So, later work like cudaMemcpyAsync to be blocked is expected. But later code assertion failed.
#include <cuda_runtime.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <cassert>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define cuda_check(x) \
assert((x) == cudaSuccess)
const size_t size = 1024 * 1024;
static void CUDART_CB cuda_callback(
cudaStream_t, cudaError_t, void* host) {
float* host_A = static_cast<float*>(host);
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
host_A[i] = i;
}
printf("hello\n");
sleep(1);
}
int main(void) {
float* A;
cuda_check(cudaMalloc(&A, size * 4));
float* host_A = static_cast<float*>(malloc(size * 4));
float* result = static_cast<float*>(malloc(size * 4));
memset(host_A, 0, size * 4);
cuda_check(cudaMemcpy(A, host_A, size * 4, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice));
cudaStream_t stream;
cuda_check(cudaStreamCreate(&stream));
cuda_check(cudaStreamAddCallback(stream, cuda_callback, host_A, 0));
cuda_check(cudaMemcpyAsync(A, host_A, size * 4, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice,
stream));
cuda_check(cudaStreamSynchronize(stream));
cuda_check(cudaMemcpy(result, A, size * 4, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost));
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
assert(result[i] == i);
}
return 0;
}
Your assumption about what is happening isn't really correct. If I use the profiler to collect the runtime API trace for your code (the cudaDeviceReset was added by me to ensure profiling data is flushed), I see this:
124.79ms 129.57ms cudaMalloc
255.23ms 694.20us cudaMemcpy
255.93ms 38.881us cudaStreamCreate
255.97ms 123.44us cudaStreamAddCallback
256.09ms 1.00348s cudaMemcpyAsync
1.25957s 76.899us cudaStreamSynchronize
1.25965s 1.3067ms cudaMemcpy
1.26187s 71.884ms cudaDeviceReset
As you can see, the cudaMemcpyAsync did get blocked by the callback (it took > 1.0 second to finish).
The fact that the copy failed to happen in the sequence you thought is likely caused by the fact that you are using a regular pageable host allocation, not pinned memory and expecting the callback to fire on the empty queue instantly. It is important to note that registering the stream callback and starting the copy occur less that 0.1 milliseconds from one another, and it is possible that the callback might not fire immediately (given it is in another thread), leaving the possibility that the copy will start before the callback function reacts to the empty queue condition.
Interestingly, if I change host_A to a pinned allocation and run the code I get this API timeline:
124.21ms 130.24ms cudaMalloc
254.45ms 1.0988ms cudaHostAlloc
255.98ms 376.14us cudaMemcpy
256.36ms 33.841us cudaStreamCreate
256.39ms 87.303us cudaStreamAddCallback
256.48ms 17.208us cudaMemcpyAsync
256.50ms 1.00331s cudaStreamSynchronize
1.25981s 1.2880ms cudaMemcpy
1.26205s 68.506ms cudaDeviceReset
Note now that the cudaStreamSynchronize is the call which is blocked. But in this case the program passes the assert, which is probably related to the scheduler correctly managing dependencies in the stream given the host memory is pinned.

How to copy dynamically allocated memory from device to host? [duplicate]

CUDA programming guide states that "Memory allocated via malloc() can be copied using the runtime (i.e., by calling any of the copy memory functions from Device Memory)", but somehow I'm having trouble to reproduce this functionality. Code:
#include <cstdio>
__device__ int* p;
__global__ void allocate_p() {
p = (int*) malloc(10);
printf("p = %p (seen by GPU)\n", p);
}
int main() {
cudaError_t err;
int* localp = (int*) malloc(10);
allocate_p<<<1,1>>>();
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
//Getting pointer to device-allocated memory
int* tmpp = NULL;
cudaMemcpyFromSymbol(&tmpp, p, 4);
printf("p = %p (seen by CPU)\n", tmpp);
//cudaMalloc((void**)&tmpp, 40);
err = cudaMemcpy(tmpp, localp, 40, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaDeviceSynchronize();
printf(" err:%i %s", (int)err, cudaGetErrorString(err));
delete localp;
return 0;
}
crashes with output:
p = 0x601f920 (seen by GPU)
p = 0x601f920 (seen by CPU)
err:11 invalid argument
I gather, that the host sees the appropriate address on device, but somehow does not like it coming from malloc().
If I allocate earlier by cudaMalloc((void**)&np, 40); and then pass the pointer np as argument to kernel allocate_p, where it will be assigned to p (instead of malloc()), then the code runs fine.
What am I doing wrong / how do we use malloc() allocated device-memory in host-side functions?
As far as I am aware, it isn't possible to copy runtime heap memory using the host API functions. It certainly was not possible in CUDA 4.x and the CUDA 5.0 release candidate has not changed this. The only workaround I can offer is to use a kernel to "gather" final results and stuff them into a device transfer buffer or zero copy memory which can be accessed via the API or directly from the host. You can see an example of this approach in this answer and another question where Mark Harris from NVIDIA confirmed that this is a limitation of the (then) current implementation in the CUDA runtime.

Implementing a critical section in CUDA

I'm trying to implement a critical section in CUDA using atomic instructions, but I ran into some trouble. I have created the test program to show the problem:
#include <cuda_runtime.h>
#include <cutil_inline.h>
#include <stdio.h>
__global__ void k_testLocking(unsigned int* locks, int n) {
int id = threadIdx.x % n;
while (atomicExch(&(locks[id]), 1u) != 0u) {} //lock
//critical section would go here
atomicExch(&(locks[id]),0u); //unlock
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
//initialize the locks array on the GPU to (0...0)
unsigned int* locks;
unsigned int zeros[10]; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {zeros[i] = 0u;}
cutilSafeCall(cudaMalloc((void**)&locks, sizeof(unsigned int)*10));
cutilSafeCall(cudaMemcpy(locks, zeros, sizeof(unsigned int)*10, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice));
//Run the kernel:
k_testLocking<<<dim3(1), dim3(256)>>>(locks, 10);
//Check the error messages:
cudaError_t error = cudaGetLastError();
cutilSafeCall(cudaFree(locks));
if (cudaSuccess != error) {
printf("error 1: CUDA ERROR (%d) {%s}\n", error, cudaGetErrorString(error));
exit(-1);
}
return 0;
}
This code, unfortunately, hard freezes my machine for several seconds and finally exits, printing out the message:
fcudaSafeCall() Runtime API error in file <XXX.cu>, line XXX : the launch timed out and was terminated.
which means that one of those while loops is not returning, but it seems like this should work.
As a reminder atomicExch(unsigned int* address, unsigned int val) atomically sets the value of the memory location stored in address to val and returns the old value. So the idea behind my locking mechanism is that it is initially 0u, so one thread should get past the while loop and all other threads should wait on the while loop since they will read locks[id] as 1u. Then when the thread is done with the critical section, it resets the lock to 0u so another thread can enter.
What am I missing?
By the way, I am compiling with:
nvcc -arch sm_11 -Ipath/to/cuda/C/common/inc XXX.cu
Okay, I figured it out, and this is yet-another-one-of-the-cuda-paradigm-pains.
As any good cuda programmer knows (notice that I did not remember this which makes me a bad cuda programmer, I think) all threads in a warp must execute the same code. The code I wrote would work perfectly if not for this fact. As it is, however, there are likely to be two threads in the same warp accessing the same lock. If one of them acquires the lock, it just forgets about executing the loop, but it cannot continue past the loop until all other threads in its warp have completed the loop. Unfortunately the other thread will never complete because it is waiting for the first one to unlock.
Here is a kernel that will do the trick without error:
__global__ void k_testLocking(unsigned int* locks, int n) {
int id = threadIdx.x % n;
bool leaveLoop = false;
while (!leaveLoop) {
if (atomicExch(&(locks[id]), 1u) == 0u) {
//critical section
leaveLoop = true;
atomicExch(&(locks[id]),0u);
}
}
}
The poster has already found an answer to his own issue. Nevertheless, in the code below, I'm providing a general framework to implement a critical section in CUDA. More in detail, the code performs a block counting, but it is easily modifyiable to host other operations to be performed in a critical section. Below, I'm also reporting some explanation of the code, with some, "typical" mistakes in the implementation of critical sections in CUDA.
THE CODE
#include <stdio.h>
#include "Utilities.cuh"
#define NUMBLOCKS 512
#define NUMTHREADS 512 * 2
/***************/
/* LOCK STRUCT */
/***************/
struct Lock {
int *d_state;
// --- Constructor
Lock(void) {
int h_state = 0; // --- Host side lock state initializer
gpuErrchk(cudaMalloc((void **)&d_state, sizeof(int))); // --- Allocate device side lock state
gpuErrchk(cudaMemcpy(d_state, &h_state, sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice)); // --- Initialize device side lock state
}
// --- Destructor
__host__ __device__ ~Lock(void) {
#if !defined(__CUDACC__)
gpuErrchk(cudaFree(d_state));
#else
#endif
}
// --- Lock function
__device__ void lock(void) { while (atomicCAS(d_state, 0, 1) != 0); }
// --- Unlock function
__device__ void unlock(void) { atomicExch(d_state, 0); }
};
/*************************************/
/* BLOCK COUNTER KERNEL WITHOUT LOCK */
/*************************************/
__global__ void blockCountingKernelNoLock(int *numBlocks) {
if (threadIdx.x == 0) { numBlocks[0] = numBlocks[0] + 1; }
}
/**********************************/
/* BLOCK COUNTER KERNEL WITH LOCK */
/**********************************/
__global__ void blockCountingKernelLock(Lock lock, int *numBlocks) {
if (threadIdx.x == 0) {
lock.lock();
numBlocks[0] = numBlocks[0] + 1;
lock.unlock();
}
}
/****************************************/
/* BLOCK COUNTER KERNEL WITH WRONG LOCK */
/****************************************/
__global__ void blockCountingKernelDeadlock(Lock lock, int *numBlocks) {
lock.lock();
if (threadIdx.x == 0) { numBlocks[0] = numBlocks[0] + 1; }
lock.unlock();
}
/********/
/* MAIN */
/********/
int main(){
int h_counting, *d_counting;
Lock lock;
gpuErrchk(cudaMalloc(&d_counting, sizeof(int)));
// --- Unlocked case
h_counting = 0;
gpuErrchk(cudaMemcpy(d_counting, &h_counting, sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice));
blockCountingKernelNoLock << <NUMBLOCKS, NUMTHREADS >> >(d_counting);
gpuErrchk(cudaPeekAtLastError());
gpuErrchk(cudaDeviceSynchronize());
gpuErrchk(cudaMemcpy(&h_counting, d_counting, sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost));
printf("Counting in the unlocked case: %i\n", h_counting);
// --- Locked case
h_counting = 0;
gpuErrchk(cudaMemcpy(d_counting, &h_counting, sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice));
blockCountingKernelLock << <NUMBLOCKS, NUMTHREADS >> >(lock, d_counting);
gpuErrchk(cudaPeekAtLastError());
gpuErrchk(cudaDeviceSynchronize());
gpuErrchk(cudaMemcpy(&h_counting, d_counting, sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost));
printf("Counting in the locked case: %i\n", h_counting);
gpuErrchk(cudaFree(d_counting));
}
CODE EXPLANATION
Critical sections are sequences of operations that must be executed sequentially by the CUDA threads.
Suppose to construct a kernel which has the task of computing the number of thread blocks of a thread grid. One possible idea is to let each thread in each block having threadIdx.x == 0 increase a global counter. To prevent race conditions, all the increases must occur sequentially, so they must be incorporated in a critical section.
The above code has two kernel functions: blockCountingKernelNoLock and blockCountingKernelLock. The former does not use a critical section to increase the counter and, as one can see, returns wrong results. The latter encapsulates the counter increase within a critical section and so produces correct results. But how does the critical section work?
The critical section is governed by a global state d_state. Initially, the state is 0. Furthermore, two __device__ methods, lock and unlock, can change this state. The lock and unlock methods can be invoked only by a single thread within each block and, in particular, by the thread having local thread index threadIdx.x == 0.
Randomly during the execution, one of the threads having local thread index threadIdx.x == 0 and global thread index, say, t will be the first invoking the lock method. In particular, it will launch atomicCAS(d_state, 0, 1). Since initially d_state == 0, then d_state will be updated to 1, atomicCAS will return 0 and the thread will exit the lock function, passing to the update instruction. In the meanwhile such a thread performs the mentioned operations, all the other threads of all the other blocks having threadIdx.x == 0 will execute the lock method. They will however find a value of d_state equal to 1, so that atomicCAS(d_state, 0, 1) will perform no update and will return 1, so leaving these threads running the while loop. After that thread t accomplishes the update, then it executes the unlock function, namely atomicExch(d_state, 0), thus restoring d_state to 0. At this point, randomly, another of the threads with threadIdx.x == 0 will lock again the state.
The above code contains also a third kernel function, namely blockCountingKernelDeadlock. However, this is another wrong implementation of the critical section, leading to deadlocks. Indeed, we recall that warps operate in lockstep and they synchronize after every instruction. So, when we execute blockCountingKernelDeadlock, there is the possibility that one of the threads in a warp, say a thread with local thread index t≠0, will lock the state. Under this circumstance, the other threads in the same warp of t, including that with threadIdx.x == 0, will execute the same while loop statement as thread t, being the execution of threads in the same warp performed in lockstep. Accordingly, all the threads will wait for someone to unlock the state, but no other thread will be able to do so, and the code will be stuck in a deadlock.
by the way u have to remember that global memory writes and ! reads aren't completed where u write them in the code ... so for this to be practice you need to add a global memfence ie __threadfence()