| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | pgsql: Further marginal hacking on generic atomic ops. |
| Date: | 2017-09-07 12:50:06 |
| Message-ID: | E1dpwFy-0007NY-L9@gemulon.postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Further marginal hacking on generic atomic ops.
In the generic atomic ops that rely on a loop around a CAS primitive,
there's no need to force the initial read of the "old" value to be atomic.
In the typically-rare case that we get a torn value, that simply means
that the first CAS attempt will fail; but it will update "old" to the
atomically-read value, so the next attempt has a chance of succeeding.
It was already being done that way in pg_atomic_exchange_u64_impl(),
but let's duplicate the approach in the rest.
(Given the current coding of the pg_atomic_read functions, this change
is a no-op anyway on popular platforms; it only makes a difference where
pg_atomic_read_u64_impl() is implemented as a CAS.)
In passing, also remove unnecessary take-a-pointer-and-dereference-it
coding in the pg_atomic_read functions. That seems to have been based
on a misunderstanding of what the C standard requires. What actually
matters is that the pointer be declared as pointing to volatile, which
it is.
I don't believe this will change the assembly code at all on x86
platforms (even ignoring the likelihood that these implementations
get overridden by others); but it may help on less-mainstream CPUs.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/13707.1504718238@sss.pgh.pa.us
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/bfea92563c511931bc98163ec70ba2809b14afa1
Modified Files
--------------
src/include/port/atomics/generic.h | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-07 13:50:04 | pgsql: Fix handling of savepoint commands within multi-statement Query |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-07 11:58:16 | pgsql: Exclude special values in recovery_target_time |