From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | pgsql: Improve 64bit atomics support. |
Date: | 2017-04-07 21:50:58 |
Message-ID: | E1cwbmU-0004SM-Ki@gemulon.postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Improve 64bit atomics support.
When adding atomics back in b64d92f1a, I added 64bit support as
optional; there wasn't yet a direct user in sight. That turned out to
be a bit short-sighted, it'd already have been useful a number of times.
Add a fallback implementation of 64bit atomics, just like the one we
have for 32bit atomics.
Additionally optimize reads/writes to 64bit on a number of platforms
where aligned writes of that size are atomic. This can now be tested
with PG_HAVE_8BYTE_SINGLE_COPY_ATOMICITY.
Author: Andres Freund
Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20160330230914.GH13305@awork2.anarazel.de
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/e8fdbd58fe564a29977f4331cd26f9697d76fc40
Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/port/atomics.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
src/include/port/atomics.h | 13 +++-----
src/include/port/atomics/arch-ia64.h | 3 ++
src/include/port/atomics/arch-ppc.h | 3 ++
src/include/port/atomics/arch-x86.h | 10 ++++++
src/include/port/atomics/fallback.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++
src/include/port/atomics/generic.h | 22 +++++++++---
src/test/regress/regress.c | 4 ---
8 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-04-07 22:09:12 | pgsql: Reduce the number of pallocs() in BRIN |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-07 21:39:10 | Re: pgsql: Identity columns |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-04-07 22:18:38 | Re: Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap' |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-04-07 21:47:04 | Re: recent deadlock regression test failures |