Re: locked reads for atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: locked reads for atomics
Date
Msg-id 274e5925684e71b0df4f7c0f473b8ce6fc6c382b.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: locked reads for atomics  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: locked reads for atomics
Re: locked reads for atomics
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 10:17 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> The idea is
> to provide an easy way to remove spinlocks, etc. and use atomics for
> less
> performance-sensitive stuff.  The implementations are intended to be
> relatively inexpensive and might continue to improve in the future,
> but the
> functions are primarily meant to help reason about correctness.

To be clear:

  x = pg_atomic_[read|write]_membarrier_u64(&v);

is semantically equivalent to:

  pg_memory_barrier();
  x = pg_atomic_[read|write]_u64(&v);
  pg_memory_barrier();

?

If so, that does seem more convenient.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ)
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: locked reads for atomics