Re: memory barriers (was: Yes, WaitLatch is vulnerable to weak-memory-ordering bugs)
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-09-22T21:45:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 11:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > > s/visca-versa/vice-versa/ > > s/laods/loads/ > > Fixed. v4 attached. > Can you please explain the "more subtly" part below? +A common pattern where this actually does result in a bug is when adding items +onto a queue. The writer does this: + + q->items[q->num_items] = new_item; + ++q->num_items; + +The reader does this: + + num_items = q->num_items; + for (i = 0; i < num_items; ++i) + /* do something with q->items[i] */ + +This code turns out to be unsafe, because the writer might increment +q->num_items before it finishes storing the new item into the appropriate slot. +More subtly, the reader might prefetch the contents of the q->items array +before reading q->num_items. How would the reader prefetch the contents of the items array, without knowing how big it is? Regards, Jeff Davis