Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZyzcrD2GsvIFrDdO@nathan обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Detection of hadware feature => please do not use signal
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 06:11:33PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 7:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Actually, after chewing on that second point awhile longer, >> how about this modest proposal: >> >> * Drop all code for run-time determination of ARM CRC support. >> Assume it's there unless user builds with a -march option that >> says it definitely isn't. > > For CRC32, that would work (and already does via configure tests) for > macOS (I'd forgotten about that in my earlier message, Macs never even > compile the CRC32 "choose" code because the system compiler targets M1 > by default), recent RHEL (see below), and presumably others, but it > would penalise Debian, FreeBSD (using the standard binary package > repo) and others if we didn't have the runtime check due to their > conservative choice of baseline arch (as Bastien just said about > Debian in a crossed email). I've been wondering about what to do > about all this for a while... There are also other features we aren't > using yet, but should, or single instructions that we are calling > through function pointers, preventing automatic vectorisation etc. One small improvement in this area that I'm working on (and about to commit for the AVX-512 stuff) is using __attribute__((target(...))) instead of special -march options for specific files [0]. Among other things, this simplifies the configure checks and eliminates the need to put chunks of code in separate files. However, I found that until recently, it wasn't possible to include arm_acle.h without the -march flag [1], which means we likely won't be able to make the switch for the ARM CRC stuff for a few more years. More to the point, until the baseline moves, I think we'll end up adding checks in header files so that we only take the function pointer overhead when it's likely to be worth it (e.g., pg_popcount() in pg_bitutils.h). It might be worth doing that for the CRC-32C code, too, since we are still quite reliant on the runtime check. [0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/50/5305/ [1] https://postgr.es/m/ZwXsE0KG_wh6_heU%40nathan -- nathan
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: