From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: spinlocks on HP-UX |
Date: | 2011-08-28 15:35:33 |
Message-ID: | 29042.1314545733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> First, I did this:
> -#define TAS(lock) _Asm_xchg(_SZ_W, lock, 1, _LDHINT_NONE)
> +#define TAS(lock) (*(lock) ? 1 : _Asm_xchg(_SZ_W, lock, 1, _LDHINT_NONE))
Seems reasonable, and similar to x86 logic.
> Then, I did this:
> - while (TAS(lock))
> + while (*lock ? 1 : TAS(lock))
Er, what? That sure looks like a manual application of what you'd
already done in the TAS macro.
> Of course, we can't apply the second patch as it stands, because I
> tested it on x86 and it loses. But it seems pretty clear we need to
> do it at least for this architecture...
Please clarify: when you say "this architecture", are you talking about
IA64 or PA-RISC? Is there any reason to think that this is specific to
HP-UX rather than any other system on the same architecture? (I'm sure
I can get access to some IA64 clusters at Red Hat, though maybe not
64-core ones.)
I don't have an objection to the TAS macro change, but I do object to
fooling with the hardware-independent code in s_lock.c ... especially
when the additional improvement seems barely above the noise threshold.
You ought to be able to do whatever you need inside the TAS macro.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-08-28 18:32:30 | [v9.2] Object access hooks with arguments support (v1) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-28 12:04:43 | confusing invalid UTF8 byte sequence error |