On 4/23/10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > Um, you have been burned by exactly this on x86 also:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-03/msg01265.php
>
>
> Yeah, we never did figure out exactly how come you were observing that
> failure on Intel-ish hardware. I was under the impression that Intel
> machines didn't have weak-memory-ordering behavior.
>
> I wonder whether your compiler had rearranged the code in ProcArrayAdd
> so that the increment happened before the array element store at the
> machine-code level. I think it would be entitled to do that under
> standard C semantics, since that ProcArrayStruct pointer isn't marked
> volatile.
Sounds likely.
Which seems to hint its better to handle all processors as weak ordered
and then work with explicit locks/memory barriers, than to sprinkle
code with 'volatile' to supress optimizations on intel and then still
fail on non-intel.
--
marko
