Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-07-29 12:45:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, but how?
> ...
> I.e. the version using 2 as the locked state uses a three byte instruction vs
> a two byte instruction before.
> *If* we are worried about this, we could
> a) Change the representation only for assert e
On 2024-07-29 12:45:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I dunno, is that the only extra check that the --disable-spinlocks
> >> implementation is providing?
>
> > I think it also provides the (valuable!) check that spinlocks were
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:40 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it also provides the (valuable!) check that spinlocks were actually
> initialized. But that again seems like something we'd be better off adding
> more general infrastructure for - nobody runs --disable-spinlocks locally, we
> shouldn
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dunno, is that the only extra check that the --disable-spinlocks
>> implementation is providing?
> I think it also provides the (valuable!) check that spinlocks were actually
> initialized. But that again seems like someth
Hi,
On 2024-07-29 12:33:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There was some recent discussion about getting rid of
> >> --disable-spinlocks on the grounds that nobody would use
> >> hardware that lacked native spinlocks. But now
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There was some recent discussion about getting rid of
>> --disable-spinlocks on the grounds that nobody would use
>> hardware that lacked native spinlocks. But now I wonder
>> if there is a testing/debugging reason to keep i
Hi,
On 2024-07-29 11:31:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > Commit 9d9b9d46f3 added spinlocks to protect the fields in ProcSignal
> > flags, but in EmitProcSignalBarrier(), the spinlock was released
> > twice. With most spinlock implementations, releasing a lock that's not
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Commit 9d9b9d46f3 added spinlocks to protect the fields in ProcSignal
> flags, but in EmitProcSignalBarrier(), the spinlock was released
> twice. With most spinlock implementations, releasing a lock that's not
> held is not easy to notice, because most of the time it d
Fix double-release of spinlock
Commit 9d9b9d46f3 added spinlocks to protect the fields in ProcSignal
flags, but in EmitProcSignalBarrier(), the spinlock was released
twice. With most spinlock implementations, releasing a lock that's not
held is not easy to notice, because most of the time it does
