Re: xlc atomics

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Date: 2016-04-27T02:04:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:52:04AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-23 21:54:07 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The bug is that the pg_atomic_compare_exchange_*() specifications
> > grant "full barrier semantics", but generic-xlc.h provided only the
> > semantics of an acquire barrier.
> 
> I find the docs at
> http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGH3R_13.1.2/com.ibm.xlcpp131.aix.doc/compiler_ref/bifs_sync_atomic.html
> to be be awfully silent about that matter. I guess you just looked at
> the assembler code?  It's nice that one can figure out stuff like that
> from an architecture manual, but it's sad that the docs for the
> intrinsics is silent about that matter.

Right.  The intrinsics provide little value as abstractions if one checks the
generated code to deduce how to use them.  I was tempted to replace the
intrinsics calls with inline asm.  At least these functions are unlikely to
change over time.

> Except that I didn't verify the rs6000_pre_atomic_barrier() and
> __fetch_and_add() internals about emitted sync/isync, the patch looks
> good.   We've so far not referred to "sequential consistency", but given
> it's rise in popularity, I don't think it hurts.

Thanks; committed.


Commits

  1. Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a LWLock's wait queue.

  2. Improve LWLock scalability.

  3. Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.

  4. Alter the configure script to fail immediately if the C compiler does not