On 19.12.2011 17:39, Martin Pitt wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [2011-12-19 17:09 +0200]:
One thing that caught my eye: if you use __sync_lock_and_test() to
implement S_LOCK(), you really should be using __sync_lock_release()
for S_UNLOCK().
Right, the patch I send does that:
#define S_UNLOCK(lock) __sync_lock_release(lock)
Oh, I'm blind...
Can you comment on or test whether the existing TAS implementation is
broken on ARM, because the existing S_UNLOCK() on ARM doesn't act as a
memory barrier? If we're going to keep the existing snippet of inline
assembly for those variants of ARM where it works, we need to either fix
S_UNLOCK or convince ourselves that it's not broken.
I'll take a closer look at the same on Itanium.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
