Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Marek Szuba" <marecki@gentoo.org>,
"PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-08-13T17:29:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On Fri, Aug 13, 2021, at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > >> Should we backpatch this? It's not like we're going to break existing > >> risc-v systems by enabling spinlock support... > > > Yeah, why not? If you were building with --disable-spinlocks before, > > this shouldn't change anything for you. > > (I haven't actually looked at the patch, mind you, but in principle > > it shouldn't break anything that worked before.) > > I now have looked at the patch, and it seems good as far as it goes, > but I wonder whether some effort ought to be expended in > src/include/port/atomics/. That should automatically pick up the intrinsic. I think we should do the same on modern compilers for spinlocks, but that's a separate discussion I guess. Address
Commits
-
Add RISC-V spinlock support in s_lock.h.
- 4ffbd55d9346 14.0 landed
- c32fcac56a21 15.0 landed
- 582a2affa4a9 9.6.24 landed
- 7915a9515cfb 10.19 landed
- 8024ff478ba7 11.14 landed
- cdda2b247dd5 12.9 landed
- 48695decc271 13.5 landed