From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |
Date: | 2017-05-25 14:39:13 |
Message-ID: | 15742.1495723153@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
@@ -382,12 +358,8 @@ static inline uint64
pg_atomic_fetch_and_u64_impl(volatile pg_atomic_uint64 *ptr, uint64 and_)
{
uint64 old;
- while (true)
- {
- old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr);
- if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_))
- break;
- }
+ old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr);
+ while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_));
return old;
}
#endif
FWIW, I do not think that writing the loops like that is good style.
It looks like a typo and will confuse readers. You could perhaps
write the same code with better formatting, eg
while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_))
/* skip */ ;
but why not leave the formulation with while(true) and a break alone?
(I take no position on whether moving the read of "old" outside the
loop is a valid optimization.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2017-05-25 14:52:14 | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-25 14:31:40 | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken) |