Re: Freezing without write I/O

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Freezing without write I/O
Date: 2013-09-20 12:40:31
Message-ID: 20130920124031.GD25971@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I agree with most of what you said - I think that's a littlebit too much
change for too little benefit.

On 2013-09-20 08:32:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Personally, I think the biggest change that would help here is to
> mandate that spinlock operations serve as compiler fences. That would
> eliminate the need for scads of volatile references all over the
> place.

The effectively already do, don't they? It's an external, no-inlineable
function call (s_lock, not the actual TAS). And even if it were to get
inlined via LTO optimization, the inline assembler we're using is doing
the __asm__ __volatile__ ("...", "memory") dance. That's a full compiler
barrier.
The non-asm implementations call to OS/compiler primitives that are also
fences.

In the case I brougth up here there is no spinlock or something similar.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-09-20 12:41:37 Re: Where to load modules from?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-09-20 12:38:45 Re: record identical operator - Review