Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers

On 2014-09-04 08:18:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> > If you want to do that, it's fine with me. What I would do is:
> >>> >
> >>> > - Back-patch the addition of the sparcv8+ stuff all the way. If
> >>> > anyone's running anything older, let them complain...
> >>> > - Remove the special case for MIPS without gcc intrinsics only in
> >>> > master, leaving the back-branches broken. If anyone cares, let them
> >>> > complain...
> >>> > - Nothing else.
> >>>
> >>> I've gone ahead and done the second of these things.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>> Andres, do you want to go take a stab at fixing the SPARC stuff?
> >>
> >> Will do, will probably take me till thursday to come up with the brain
> >> cycles.
> >
> > Ping?
>
> This has been pending for almost two months now and, at your request,
> my patch to make spinlocks act as compiler barriers is waiting behind
> it. Can we please get this moving again soon, or can I commit that
> patch and you can fix this when you get around to it?

I finally pushed this. And once more I seriously got pissed at the poor
overall worldwide state of documentation and continously changing
terminology around this.

Sorry for taking this long :(

Do you have a current version of your patch to make them compiler
barriers?

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services