Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQiha9kA9tc-tuLRBbHHJUy90Sks6dKAivbbWtQd3aMkw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> but I don't think that Andreas' patch is necessarily a
>> performance patch. There can be value in removing superfluous
>> code; doing so sometimes clarifies intent and understanding.
>
> Well, that's why I said I would be satisfied with a neutral
> benchmark result -- when there is a tie, the shorter, simpler code
> should generally win.  I'm not really sure what there was in what I
> said to argue about; since that I've just been trying figure that
> out.  If we all agree, let's let it drop.

If we don't want to apply this, then I think that a sensible
compromise would be to add a code comment that says that we don't
believe the LOCK prefix matters.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.