Re: Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4))

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4))
Date: 2013-08-29 11:19:33
Message-ID: 521F2E45.8060406@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 28.08.2013 20:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
>> So, my plan is to apply the attached non-locked-tas-spin-x86_64.patch to
>> master. But I would love to get feedback from people running different
>> x86_64 hardware.
>
> Surely this patch should update the existing comment at line 209? Or at
> least point out that a non-locked test in TAS_SPIN is not the same as a
> non-locked test in tas() itself.

Committed with some comment changes. I also added a note to the 32-bit
x86 implementation, suggesting we probably should do the same there,
no-one's just gotten around to do the testing.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2013-08-29 12:09:35 Re: [v9.4] row level security
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2013-08-29 11:05:15 Re: [v9.4] row level security