From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
Date: | 2015-06-29 04:42:53 |
Message-ID: | 31705.1435552973@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What we did do that touched s_lock.h was attempt to ensure that
> SpinLockAcquire() and SpinLockRelease() function as compiler barriers,
> so that it should no longer be necessary to litter the code with
> "volatile" in every function that uses those. It is possible that
> this could be broken on HP-UX. If _Asm_sched_fence() doesn't
> constraint the compiler appropriately, that could explain the problems
> we're seeing here. But we're not the only one using that incantation,
> so I'm left scratching my head.
AFAICS, on non-gcc IA64, 9.4's version of S_UNLOCK defaulted to
#define S_UNLOCK(lock) (*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0)
whereas in HEAD, we've got
#define S_UNLOCK(lock) \
do { _Asm_sched_fence(); (*(lock)) = 0; } while (0)
which immediately raises the question of why omitting the "volatile"
cast is okay. The comments for the gcc/icc version make it clear that
the volatile qual is pretty critical for those compilers. I also wonder
if we don't need a second _Asm_sched_fence() after the lock release.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-06-29 05:54:02 | Re: optimizing vacuum truncation scans |
Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-06-29 03:52:39 | Re: pg_file_settings view vs. Windows |