Re: spinlocks on HP-UX

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> First, I did this:

> -#define TAS(lock) _Asm_xchg(_SZ_W, lock, 1, _LDHINT_NONE)
> +#define TAS(lock) (*(lock) ? 1 : _Asm_xchg(_SZ_W, lock, 1, _LDHINT_NONE))

Seems reasonable, and similar to x86 logic.

> Then, I did this:

> -       while (TAS(lock))
> +       while (*lock ? 1 : TAS(lock))

Er, what?  That sure looks like a manual application of what you'd
already done in the TAS macro.

> Of course, we can't apply the second patch as it stands, because I
> tested it on x86 and it loses.  But it seems pretty clear we need to
> do it at least for this architecture...

Please clarify: when you say "this architecture", are you talking about
IA64 or PA-RISC?  Is there any reason to think that this is specific to
HP-UX rather than any other system on the same architecture?  (I'm sure
I can get access to some IA64 clusters at Red Hat, though maybe not
64-core ones.)

I don't have an objection to the TAS macro change, but I do object to
fooling with the hardware-independent code in s_lock.c ... especially
when the additional improvement seems barely above the noise threshold.
You ought to be able to do whatever you need inside the TAS macro.

			regards, tom lane