Re: better atomics - v0.2

On 2013-11-19 10:23:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > The only fundamental thing that I don't immediately see how we can
> > support is the spinlock based memory barrier since that introduces a
> > circularity (atomics need barrier, barrier needs spinlocks, spinlock
> > needs atomics).
>
> We've been pretty much assuming for a long time that calling a
> function in another translation unit acts as a compiler barrier.
> There's a lot of code that isn't actually safe against global
> optimization; we assume, for example, that memory accesses can't move
> over an LWLockAcquire(), but that's just using spinlocks internally,
> and those aren't guaranteed to be compiler barriers, per previous
> discussion.  So one idea for a compiler barrier is just to define a
> function call pg_compiler_barrier() in a file by itself, and make that
> the fallback implementation.  That will of course fail if someone uses
> a globally optimizing compiler, but I think it'd be OK to say that if
> you want to do that, you'd better have a real barrier implementation.

That works for compiler, but not for memory barriers :/

> Right now, it's probably unsafe regardless.

Yes, I have pretty little trust in the current state. Both from the
infrastructure perspective (spinlocks, barriers) as from individual
pieces of code. To a good part we're probably primarily protected by
x86's black magic and the fact that everyone with sufficient concurrency
to see problems uses x86.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services