| From: | "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marek Szuba" <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V |
| Date: | 2021-08-13 17:29:54 |
| Message-ID: | 285263d1-b9f7-4342-a1f8-09176b923b1d@www.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> Should we backpatch this? It's not like we're going to break existing
> >> risc-v systems by enabling spinlock support...
>
> > Yeah, why not? If you were building with --disable-spinlocks before,
> > this shouldn't change anything for you.
> > (I haven't actually looked at the patch, mind you, but in principle
> > it shouldn't break anything that worked before.)
>
> I now have looked at the patch, and it seems good as far as it goes,
> but I wonder whether some effort ought to be expended in
> src/include/port/atomics/.
That should automatically pick up the intrinsic. I think we should do the same on modern compilers for spinlocks, but that's a separate discussion I guess.
Address
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-13 17:37:02 | Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-13 17:25:05 | Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V |