Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()
Date
Msg-id 20200615041620.u2u6oo75nscc6j4g@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2020-06-14 18:55:27 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Does something guarantee the write will be globally-visible by the time the
> first concurrent accessor shows up?

The function comments say:

 *
 * Has to be done before any concurrent usage..
 *
 * No barrier semantics.


> (If not, one could (a) do an unlocked ptr->value=0, then the atomic
> write, or (b) revert and improve the suppression.)  I don't doubt it's
> fine for the ways PostgreSQL uses atomics today, which generally
> initialize an atomic before the concurrent-accessor processes even
> exist.

I think it's unlikely that there are cases where you could safely
initialize the atomic without needing some form of synchronization
before it can be used. If a barrier were needed, what'd guarantee the
concurrent access happened after the initialization in the first place?

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: create database with template doesn't copy database ACL
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: valgrind versus pg_atomic_init()