From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, greg(at)burd(dot)me |
Subject: | Re: IO in wrong state on riscv64 |
Date: | 2025-10-13 05:40:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLpP2T90M3eEPB95KfB4PtdfVnEUNH+aoRiXfSk-ODJkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 5:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 13.10.2025 01:44, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 6:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Please find those attached (gdb "disass/m pgaio_io_update_state" misses
> >> the start of the function (but it's still disassembled below), so I
> >> decided to share the whole output).
> > Could you please also disassemble pgaio_io_reclaim()?
>
> Sure, the output of disass/m pgaio_io_reclaim is attached.
Thanks. All seems to have something plausible in the right places,
but I know nothing about RISC-V... hmm, what happens if you replace
pg_{read,write}_barrier() with pg_memory_barrier(), in those three
functions? And if it happens to help, perhaps you could try to figure
out which one(s) help? Not that it should be necessary but as a clue
or to rule out this line of enquiry... I guess that should generate
FENCE RW,RW, meaning wait for all preceding reads and writes to
complete and don't let any following reads or writes begin, but that's
just from googling...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-10-13 05:44:42 | Re: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2025-10-13 05:39:41 | Re: Add RESPECT/IGNORE NULLS and FROM FIRST/LAST options |