From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 22:52:47 -0400
Message-ID: <1647173.1591411967@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200606023103.avzrctgv7476xj7i@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <1141819.1591208385@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200603204542.reuladbmgmjqzoi6@alap3.anarazel.de>
<1253593.1591293439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200604185525.wuyjtkluppj4eddr@alap3.anarazel.de>
<1256701.1591297654@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200605023302.g6v3ydozy5txifji@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20200606001926.zin5getvvhqppnm2@alap3.anarazel.de>
<1642804.1591405316@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200606023103.avzrctgv7476xj7i@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-06-05 21:01:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> At some point I think we'll have to give up --disable-spinlocks; it's
>> really of pretty marginal use (how often does anyone port PG to a new
>> CPU type?) and the number of weird interactions it adds in this area
>> seems like more than it's worth.
> Indeed. And any new architecture one would port PG to would have good
> enough compiler intrinsics to make that trivial. I still think it'd make
> sense to have a fallback implementation using compiler intrinsics...
> And I think we should just require 32bit atomics at the same time. Would
> probably kill gaur though.
Not only gaur. A quick buildfarm survey finds these active members
reporting not having 32-bit atomics:
anole | 2020-06-05 11:20:17 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
chipmunk | 2020-05-29 22:27:56 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
curculio | 2020-06-05 22:30:06 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
frogfish | 2020-05-31 13:00:25 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
gaur | 2020-05-19 13:33:25 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
gharial | 2020-06-05 12:41:14 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
hornet | 2020-06-05 09:11:26 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
hoverfly | 2020-06-05 22:06:14 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
locust | 2020-06-05 10:14:29 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
mandrill | 2020-06-05 09:20:03 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
prairiedog | 2020-06-05 09:55:49 | pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas=no
It looks to me like this is mostly about compiler support not the
hardware; that doesn't make it not a problem, though. (I also
remain skeptical about the quality of the compiler intrinsics
on non-mainstream hardware.)
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
In-Reply-To: <1647173.1591411967@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox