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
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 |