Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch64 native spin lock.

From: YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, wengyanqing(at)ymatrix(dot)cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch64 native spin lock.
Date: 2023-05-18 00:53:08
Message-ID: 0e348063-b3db-97b6-2fdf-907d7ad77a55@ymatrix.cn
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks for the information.

I checked the assembly code of __sync_lock_test_and_set generated by GCC
for loongarch64. It is exactly the same as this patch.

I guess this patch is not necessary any more.

Regards

On 2023/5/17 20:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn> writes:
>> This patch set tries to add loongarch64 native spin lock to postgresql.
>
> This came up before, and our response was
>
> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=1c72d82c2
>
> In principle, at least, there is no longer any need for
> machine-specific s_lock.h additions. Is there a strong reason
> why the __sync_lock_test_and_set solution isn't good enough?
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2023-05-18 01:54:59 Re: issue with meson builds on msys2
Previous Message Jonathan S. Katz 2023-05-17 23:59:48 Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction