| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | 吴亚飞 <wuyf41619(at)hundsun(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: spinlock support on loongarch64 |
| Date: | 2022-11-02 21:37:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1866518.1667425024@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-11-02 14:55:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After actually testing (by removing the ARM stanza on a macOS machine),
>> it seems that placement doesn't work, because of the default definition
>> of S_UNLOCK at the bottom of the "#if defined(__GNUC__)" stuff. Putting
>> it inside that test works, and seems like it should be fine, since this
>> is a GCC-ism.
> Looks reasonable. I tested it on x86-64 by disabling that section and it
> works.
Thanks for looking.
> I wonder if it's worth keeing the full copy of this in the arm section? We
> could just define SPIN_DELAY() for aarch64?
I thought about that, but given the increasing popularity of ARM
I bet that that stanza is going to accrete more special-case knowledge
over time. It's probably simplest to keep it separate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-02 23:22:16 | Re: spinlock support on loongarch64 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-11-02 21:30:42 | Re: pg_dump: Refactor code that constructs ALTER ... OWNER TO commands |