Horton

Re: spinlock support on loongarch64

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: 吴亚飞 <wuyf41619@hundsun.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-11-02T15:37:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
=?gb2312?B?zuLRx7fJ?= <wuyf41619@hundsun.com> writes:
> add spinlock support on loongarch64.

I wonder if we shouldn't just do that (ie, try to use
__sync_lock_test_and_set) as a generic fallback on any unsupported
architecture.  We could get rid of the separate stanza for RISC-V
that way.  The main thing that an arch-specific stanza could bring
is knowledge of the best data type width to use for a spinlock;
but I don't see a big problem with defaulting to "int".  We can
always add arch-specific stanzas for any machines where that's
shown to be a seriously poor choice.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Allow use of __sync_lock_test_and_set for spinlocks on any machine.