Re: BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64 - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64
Date
Msg-id 877hz1abzt.fsf_-_@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64  (Theo Schlossnagle <jesus@omniti.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> There is no reason for the i386 or AMD64 code to be different from what's
>> already tested on Linux --- the hardware's the same and the OS surely
>> doesn't make a difference at this level.
>
> On linux you use gcc, which allows for inline assembly. So, the code is
> already very different.

How does this interact with binary builds such as rpms? If someone installs an
amd64 binary on an x86 machine or vice versa does this assembly do the right
thing at all? Does it perform slowly?

Ideally we would compile both and pick the right one at run-time but that
might have annoying overhead if there's a branch before every pg_atomic_cas
call.

Perhaps a minimal thing to do would be to detect a mismatch on startup and log
a message about it.

--
  Gregory Stark
  http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Theo Schlossnagle
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #2401: spinlocks not available on amd64
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #4876: author of MD5 says it's seriously broken - hash collision resistance problems