Re: shm_toc_lookup API

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: shm_toc_lookup API
Date: 2017-06-05 19:02:49
Message-ID: 20170605190249.pd4jpet5y2xoheo2@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-06-05 14:57:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If it doesn't prevent both the hardware and the compiler from
> > reordering, it's broken. See the comments for pg_read_barrier() in
> > atomics.h.
>
> Meh. Without volatile, I think that the compiler would be within its
> rights to elide the nentry local variable and re-fetch toc->toc_nentry
> each time through the loop.

I don't think that's true. Excerption from the docs of the macros:
About pg_read_barrier()
* A read barrier must act as a compiler barrier, and in addition must
About pg_compiler_barrier():
* A compiler barrier need not (and preferably should not) emit any actual
* machine code, but must act as an optimization fence: the compiler must not
* reorder loads or stores to main memory around the barrier. However, the
* CPU may still reorder loads or stores at runtime, if the architecture's
* memory model permits this.
*/

Given that I don't see how it'd be permissible to elide the local
variable. Are you saying that's permitted, or that our implementations
don't guarantee that?

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-06-05 19:06:06 Re: shm_toc_lookup API
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-06-05 18:57:10 Re: shm_toc_lookup API