Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 20:45, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:42, Tsutomu Yamada <tsut...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > >> > >> 2) use appropriate macro and datatypes for Windows API. > >> enables more than 32bits shared memory. > > > > Are you sure this one should use __noop, and not __nop? > > > > __noop: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/s6btaxcs.aspx > > __nop: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa983381.aspx > > > > I think __nop is what we want? > > > > Also, that turns it into "nop" and not "rep nop", no? > > I did some more research, and __nop() is at least closer than > __noop(), but it's still not the same. > > > > Should we perhaps instead use __yield, per: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2b2h26kx.aspx > > On further reading, __yield() is only available on Itanium.
This spinlock code was came from below. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg00307.php Sorry, I didn't care which macro was better. I found 'YieldProcessor' in MSDN. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms687419%28VS.85%29.aspx YieldProcessor was defined in "winnt.h". The definition changes depending on architecture and compiler version. __asm { rep nop }; __mm_pause(); __yield(); YieldProcessor become "__mm_pause()" in _AMD64_. So "__mm_pause()" is better? // test program #include <windows.h> main() { YieldProcessor(); } // end // cl /E test.c > out.i // tail out.i // # I recommend redirecting to file, The output become large. Tsutomu Yamada SRA OSS, Inc. Japan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
