From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hari Babu <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'Craig Ringer' <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, 'Hans-Jürgen Schönig' <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Ants Aasma' <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'PostgreSQL Hackers' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Amit kapila' <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
Date: | 2013-03-18 05:29:37 |
Message-ID: | 5146A641.1050505@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013-03-18 06:22 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> 2013-03-18 03:52 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
>> Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>>> 2013-03-17 16:07 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
>>>> It suddenly occurs to me though that there's more than one way to skin
>>>> this cat. We could easily add another static flag variable called
>>>> "sigalrm_allowed" or some such, and have the signal handler test that
>>>> and immediately return without doing anything if it's off. Clearing
>>>> and setting such a variable would be a lot cheaper than an extra
>>>> setitimer call, as well as more robust since it would protect us from
>>>> all sources of SIGALRM not just ITIMER_REAL.
>>> Something like the attached patch?
>> Well, something like that, but it still needed some improvements. In
>> particular I thought it best to leave the signal handler still releasing
>> the procLatch unconditionally --- that behavior is independent of what
>> this module is doing. Also you seem to have some odd ideas about what
>> do-while will accomplish. AFAIK, in this usage it's purely a syntactic
>> trick without much semantic content. It's the marking of the variable
>> as "volatile" that counts for telling the compiler not to re-order
>> operations.
>
> The volatile marking shouldn't even be necessary there.
> The signal handler doesn't writes to it, only the main code.
> I just put it there saying "why not?" to myself.
> IIRC, volatile is needed if both the signal handler and the
> main code changes the same variable.
Also, since the the variable assignment doesn't depend on other code
in the same function (or vice-versa) the compiler is still free to
reorder it.
Volatile is about not caching the variable in a CPU register since
it's "volatile"...
>
> I got the reordering idea from here:
> http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/compiler_barriers.html
>
> Thanks for committing,
> Zoltán Böszörményi
>
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-18 05:47:30 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-03-18 05:26:08 | Re: Enabling Checksums |