Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Friday, September 12, 2003 00:06:49 -0400 Tom Lane  
wrote:

> Larry Rosenman  writes:
>> I've already sent a whine-a-gram to the compiler guys at SCO.
>
> Prolly you thought of this already, but: getting them to *add*
> an implicit #define of __i386__ should be plenty easy compared
> to getting them to *remove* the one for i386.  And while I think
> they should remove the latter, the immediate problem would be
> solved as soon as they add the former.
sure, and I expect that's what they may do.  We'll see what they say.

LER

>
> 			regards, tom lane



-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> > when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> > it seems like a good time to get it working.
>
> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

I didn't think we had done that yet ... had we?  called for port reports,
that is ... ?

> But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
> not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta.  Couldn't we do
> something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
> on breaking everything else?

I just went through the whole patch myself, and as much as I like the
overall simplification, I tend to agree with Tom here on questioning the
requirement to do suck a massive change so late in the end cycle ... is
there no smaller bandaid that can be applied to handle the Opteron/Itanium
issue for v7.4, with the "cleanup patch" being applied right away after
v7.4?

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Yes, but to throw an error if spinlocks aren't found, we need this
> patch.  We would have to test for Opteron in all the platforms that test
> for specific CPU's but don't test for opteron, and might support
> opterion/itanium, but even then, we don't have any way of getting a
> report of a failure.

'K, but apparently right now we are broken on Opteron/Itanium without this
patch ... so, to fix, we either:

a. add appropriate tests to the individual port files based on individual
failure reports (albeit not clean, definitely safer), or:

b. we do massive, sweeping changes to the whole HAVE_TEST_AND_SET
detection code (definitely cleaner, but has potential of breaking more
then it fixes) :(

personally, as late in the cycle as we are, I think that a. is the wiser
move for v7.4, with b. being something that should happen as soon as
possible once we've branched and start working on v7.5 ...

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Well, the problem was that we defined HAS_TEST_AND_SET inside the ports.
> I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.

From what I understand, "not working properly" means slow, not broken, no?
Which means ppl could submit a problem report and it could be fixed for
v7.4.1 ... its not so much  'not working properly' as it is 'not optimal
performance' ...

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.

could we put something in the various port files to standardize this?  ie.
in unixware.h, add somethinglike:

#ifdef i386
#define __i386__
#endif

just so that 'special cases' are centralized in the ports file, and the
mainstream code doesn't have:

#if defined(i386) || defined(__i386) || defined(__i386__)

?

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > Prompted by confusion over Itanium/Opterion, I have written a patch to
> > improve the way we define spinlocks for platforms and cpu's.
> 
> The main.c part of the patch strikes me as irrelevant to the claimed
> purpose and unlikely to accomplish anything except breaking things.
> Do you have a system the main.c "__alpha" code is relevant to, on which
> to test that you did not break it?
> 
> Other than that, it looks like basically a good idea.  But...

I was going to have an alpha guy test it --- that was the one change I
wasn't sure about.  We did test for __alpha__ all over the port/*.h
files, so it wasn't clear which alpha's were being hit.  I can throw in
a comment and skip that part --- not sure.

> > I plan to apply this to 7.4.
> 
> This seems like living dangerously.  You do realize that this patch will
> invalidate our trust that the code works on every single supported
> platform?  I think beta3 may be a bit late in the game for this sort of
> thing, because we've already gotten a good bit of the testing we can
> expect to get for lesser-used platforms during this beta cycle.
> 
> At the very least I'd like to see the decision discussed on -hackers
> and not buried in -patches.

The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
it seems like a good time to get it working.  We had the FreeBSD report
with not finding Opteron/Itanium, and that's what got me going.  Also,
if it doesn't find the spinlock code, it will report an error, so we
should flesh this all out as we collect supported platforms, which we
haven't started yet.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> > when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> > it seems like a good time to get it working.
> 
> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

I haven't collected any known reports yet.  That happens later, I
thought, nearer to RC1.

> But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
> not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta.  Couldn't we do
> something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
> on breaking everything else?

Yes, but to throw an error if spinlocks aren't found, we need this
patch.  We would have to test for Opteron in all the platforms that test
for specific CPU's but don't test for opteron, and might support
opterion/itanium, but even then, we don't have any way of getting a
report of a failure.

Yea, I should have thought of this before beta1, but now that I see the
bug reports, seems we have to go this way.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
> > not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta.  Couldn't we do
> > something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
> > on breaking everything else?
> 
> I just went through the whole patch myself, and as much as I like the
> overall simplification, I tend to agree with Tom here on questioning the
> requirement to do suck a massive change so late in the end cycle ... is
> there no smaller bandaid that can be applied to handle the Opteron/Itanium
> issue for v7.4, with the "cleanup patch" being applied right away after
> v7.4?

Well, the problem was that we defined HAS_TEST_AND_SET inside the ports.
I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.

Take FreeBSD for example, that couldn't find Opteron. It lists every
cpu like this:
	
	#if defined(__i386__)
	#define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
	#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
	typedef unsigned char slock_t;
	#endif
	
	#if defined(__sparc__)
	#define NEED_SPARC_TAS_ASM
	#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
	typedef unsigned char slock_t;
	#endif
	
We would have to add an opteron/itanium to port that does this, but if
we miss some opteron/itanium define, we might never know because of the
silent fallback.

I don't care if we save it for 7.5 --- I just don't know how we will be
sure we have things working properly without it.

We could apply it tomorrow and see how things look on Monday.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman  writes:
> > Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If y'all=
> > =20
> > care).
> 
> Unfixably?  Or just a small oversight?
> 
> I'm actually not worried about platforms that are actively being tested.
> It's the stuff that hasn't been confirmed recently that is going to be
> at risk.

I sent him a new patch just now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> > that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> > finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> > fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> > do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.
> 
> Agreed, the silent fallback to semaphores isn't such a hot idea in
> hindsight.  But the part of the patch that requires a configure option
> to use that code path could be applied without touching anything else.

Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the
port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases.  I am a little
concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will
patching for a while.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the
> > port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases.  I am a little
> > concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will
> > patching for a while.
> 
> Probably so --- but we'd only be breaking new platforms that people are
> starting to use, not old ones that might not be getting tested
> regularly.

Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
spinlocks, and not even knowing it.  I don't think problem reports will
be limited to new platforms.

> Understand that I'm not dead set against applying this patch for 7.4.
> (On a code-cleanliness point of view I favor it.)  What I want is some
> open discussion about the risks and benefits before we decide.

Sure, and I am not pushing the patch.  I am just saying it would have
been ideal a few weeks ago --- I am not sure if we are worse off with or
without it.

I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
__i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.

What the code used to do is define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM unconditionally on
some platforms (negating the need to test for a compiler symbol) or test
for each platform compiler symbol (and not test all possible ways it
could be specified), like FreeBSD did.  That's why things are so messy. 
I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
consistency.  It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
be good.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
> > spinlocks, and not even knowing it.  I don't think problem reports will
> > be limited to new platforms.
> 
> Very likely --- I heard from someone recently who was trying to run
> HPUX/Itanium.  After we got past the hard-wired assumption that HPUX
> == HPPA, it was still giving lousy performance for lack of spinlocks.
> I like the part of the patch that is in-your-face about that.
> 
> > I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> > __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
> 
> [blink]  Namespace infringement 'r us, huh?
> 
> > I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
> > consistency.  It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
> > be good.
> 
> Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
> Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.

Roger!

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Well, the problem was that we defined HAS_TEST_AND_SET inside the ports.
> > I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> > that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> > finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> > fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> > do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.
> 
> >From what I understand, "not working properly" means slow, not broken, no?
> Which means ppl could submit a problem report and it could be fixed for
> v7.4.1 ... its not so much  'not working properly' as it is 'not optimal
> performance' ...

Right, though I am not sure people will know _slow_ configuration vs.
PostgreSQL is slow.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> > __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
> 
> could we put something in the various port files to standardize this?  ie.
> in unixware.h, add somethinglike:
> 
> #ifdef i386
> #define __i386__
> #endif
> 
> just so that 'special cases' are centralized in the ports file, and the
> mainstream code doesn't have:
> 
> #if defined(i386) || defined(__i386) || defined(__i386__)

Yep, that's what Tom wants and I am doing that now.  I sent a patch to
Larry for testing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Larry Rosenman  writes:
> > Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If y'all=
> > =20
> > care).
> 
> Unfixably?  Or just a small oversight?

Updated patch now works on Unixware.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian  writes:
> > He is uncomfortable with the port/*.h changes at this point, so it seems
> > I am going to have to add Itanium/Opteron tests to most of those files.
> 
> Why don't you try to put together a proposed patch of that kind, and
> then we can look to see how big and ugly it is compared to the other?
> If the alternative is shown to be really messy, that would sway my
> opinion, maybe Marc's too.

OK, here is an Opteron/Itanium patch that might work.  I say "might"
because I don't have a lot of confidence in the current spinlock
detection code.  There is an uncoupling between the definition of
HAS_TEST_AND_SET, the data type used by slock_t, and the assembler code.

For example, here is darwin.h:
	
	#if defined(__ppc__)
	#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
	#endif
	
	#if defined(__ppc__)
	typedef unsigned int slock_t;
	
	#else
	typedef unsigned char slock_t;
	
	#endif

Does this say that Darwin on something other than PPC doesn't have
spinlocks?  Is that going to hit a spinlock define, or fall through?

Also, look at NEED_I386_TAS_ASM:  It is used only by SCO compilers,
though it is defined for all Intel platforms.  The s_lock.h gcc test
already tests __i386__.  It really doesn't do anything on non-SCO
compilers, and non-SCO compilers are better testing for i386 anyway.

Also, Solaris has just this:

	#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
	typedef unsigned char slock_t;

How do they know what CPU is being used?  Both Sparc and i386 use
"unsigned char", so I guess it is OK, but I think you can see what I
mean when I say I don't have a lot of confidence in what we have now.

Let me also add that some slock_t typedef's didn't match the assembly
code.  For example, __alpha_ on netbsd.h had slock_t defined as
"unsigned long", while in linux.h it was "long int".  I assumed the
alpha was the correct one, but clearly they should be the same because
they use the same assembly code.

See what I mean.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Index: src/include/port/bsdi.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/bsdi.h,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -c -c -r1.8 bsdi.h
*** src/include/port/bsdi.h	4 Aug 2003 00:43:32 -0000	1.8
--- src/include/port/bsdi.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 1,10 ****
! #if defined(__i386__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #endif
  #if defined(__sparc__)
  #define NEED_SPARC_TAS_ASM
  #endif
  
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  
- typedef unsigned char slock_t;
--- 1,14 ----
! #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
+ typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
  #endif
  #if defined(__sparc__)
  #define NEED_SPARC_TAS_ASM
+ typedef unsigned char slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  
Index: src/include/port/freebsd.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/freebsd.h,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -c -c -r1.10 freebsd.h
*** src/include/port/freebsd.h	4 Aug 2003 00:43:32 -0000	1.10
--- src/include/port/freebsd.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 1,7 ****
! #if defined(__i386__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
--- 1,12 ----
! #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
Index: src/include/port/netbsd.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/netbsd.h,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -c -c -r1.9 netbsd.h
*** src/include/port/netbsd.h	4 Aug 2003 00:43:32 -0000	1.9
--- src/include/port/netbsd.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 1,7 ****
! #if defined(__i386__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
--- 1,12 ----
! #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
Index: src/include/port/openbsd.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/openbsd.h,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -c -c -r1.8 openbsd.h
*** src/include/port/openbsd.h	4 Aug 2003 00:43:32 -0000	1.8
--- src/include/port/openbsd.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 1,7 ****
! #if defined(__i386__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
--- 1,12 ----
! #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
  #define NEED_I386_TAS_ASM
  #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
  #endif
  
  #if defined(__sparc__)
Index: src/include/port/sco.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/sco.h,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -c -c -r1.13 sco.h
*** src/include/port/sco.h	28 Oct 2001 06:26:08 -0000	1.13
--- src/include/port/sco.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 6,12 ****
--- 6,18 ----
  
  #define USE_UNIVEL_CC
  
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ #define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+ #else
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
  
  #ifndef			BIG_ENDIAN
  #define			BIG_ENDIAN		4321
Index: src/include/port/univel.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/univel.h,v
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -c -c -r1.17 univel.h
*** src/include/port/univel.h	28 Oct 2001 06:26:08 -0000	1.17
--- src/include/port/univel.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 7,13 ****
--- 7,18 ----
   ***************************************/
  #define USE_UNIVEL_CC
  
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+ #else
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
  
  #ifndef			BIG_ENDIAN
  #define			BIG_ENDIAN		4321
Index: src/include/port/unixware.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql-server/src/include/port/unixware.h,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -c -c -r1.11 unixware.h
*** src/include/port/unixware.h	28 Oct 2001 06:26:08 -0000	1.11
--- src/include/port/unixware.h	12 Sep 2003 15:14:15 -0000
***************
*** 10,16 ****
--- 10,21 ----
   ***************************************/
  #define USE_UNIVEL_CC
  
+ #if defined(__ia64)
+ typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+ #else
  typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+ #endif
+ 
  
  #ifndef			BIG_ENDIAN
  #define			BIG_ENDIAN		4321

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:46:56 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier" 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Bruce Momjian  writes:
>> > The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error
>> > reporting when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with
>> > Opteron/Itanium, it seems like a good time to get it working.
>>
>> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
>> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port
>> reports.
>
> I didn't think we had done that yet ... had we?  called for port reports,
> that is ... ?
>
>> But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
>> not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta.  Couldn't we do
>> something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
>> on breaking everything else?
>
> I just went through the whole patch myself, and as much as I like the
> overall simplification, I tend to agree with Tom here on questioning the
> requirement to do suck a massive change so late in the end cycle ... is
> there no smaller bandaid that can be applied to handle the Opteron/Itanium
> issue for v7.4, with the "cleanup patch" being applied right away after
> v7.4?
>
Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If y'all 
care).

LER

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> The problem with waiting for 7.5 is that we will have no error reporting
> when our non-spinlock code is being executed, and with Opteron/Itanium,
> it seems like a good time to get it working.

Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

But it seems to me that this is mostly a cosmetic cleanup and therefore
not the kind of thing to be doing late in beta.  Couldn't we do
something that affects only Opteron/Itanium and doesn't take a chance
on breaking everything else?

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:13:54 -0400 Tom Lane 
 wrote:

> Larry Rosenman  writes:
>> Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If
>> y'all= =20
>> care).
>
> Unfixably?  Or just a small oversight?
>
> I'm actually not worried about platforms that are actively being tested.
> It's the stuff that hasn't been confirmed recently that is going to be
> at risk.
I'm seeing failures with the 2nd patch as well.  Seems like it's not liking 
UnixWare's
cc defines.

the documentation is at:

http://www.lerctr.org:8458/

the cc man page is at:

http://www.lerctr.org:8458/en/man/html.1/cc.1.html

Tom, You still have an account here.

Bruce, if you'd like an account, that is easily arranged.

LER

>
> 			regards, tom lane



-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

"Marc G. Fournier"  writes:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, as long as you're prepared to reduce the list of known supported
>> platforms to zero as of 7.4beta3, and issue a fresh call for port reports.

> I didn't think we had done that yet ... had we?  called for port reports,
> that is ... ?

We hadn't, no.  My point is that in the past we've continued to list
platforms as supported if we've had a successful report in the past
release or two.  Fooling with the spinlock code is delicate enough
that I'd want to insist on moving everything to the "unsupported"
category until we get a success report with the modified code.

Maybe we should just do that.  It's likely that the only platforms
that end up marked unsupported are ones that no one cares about any
more anyway.  But I think we have to realize that this is not a
trivial set of changes, even if it looks like it "should work".
(Which it does, just for the record.  I'm just feeling paranoid
because of where we are in the release cycle.)

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> I guess we could splatter a test for Itanium and Opterion in every port
> that could possibly use it, but then again, if we fall back to not
> finding it for some reason, we don't get a report because we silently
> fall back to semaphores.  That's what has me worried, that if we don't
> do it, we will not know what platforms really aren't working properly.

Agreed, the silent fallback to semaphores isn't such a hot idea in
hindsight.  But the part of the patch that requires a configure option
to use that code path could be applied without touching anything else.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Larry Rosenman  writes:
> Bruce sent me a copy of the patch, and it ****BREAKS**** UnixWare (If y'all=
> =20
> care).

Unfixably?  Or just a small oversight?

I'm actually not worried about platforms that are actively being tested.
It's the stuff that hasn't been confirmed recently that is going to be
at risk.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> Yes, we could do just the configure warning, then plaster tests into the
> port files to try to hit all the opteron/itanium cases.  I am a little
> concerned that this might throw up a bunch of problem cases that we will
> patching for a while.

Probably so --- but we'd only be breaking new platforms that people are
starting to use, not old ones that might not be getting tested
regularly.

Understand that I'm not dead set against applying this patch for 7.4.
(On a code-cleanliness point of view I favor it.)  What I want is some
open discussion about the risks and benefits before we decide.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Bruce Momjian  writes:
> Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
> spinlocks, and not even knowing it.  I don't think problem reports will
> be limited to new platforms.

Very likely --- I heard from someone recently who was trying to run
HPUX/Itanium.  After we got past the hard-wired assumption that HPUX
== HPPA, it was still giving lousy performance for lack of spinlocks.
I like the part of the patch that is in-your-face about that.

> I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
> __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.

[blink]  Namespace infringement 'r us, huh?

> I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
> consistency.  It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
> be good.

Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Larry Rosenman  writes:
>> Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
>> Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.

> that's reasonable.  At least until 64-bit UnixWare. :-)

Even then, I'd prefer to put the necessary kluge into template/unixware
or Makefile.unixware or port/unixware.h, rather than add a risky
assumption globally.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Larry Rosenman  writes:
> I've already sent a whine-a-gram to the compiler guys at SCO.

Prolly you thought of this already, but: getting them to *add*
an implicit #define of __i386__ should be plenty easy compared
to getting them to *remove* the one for i386.  And while I think
they should remove the latter, the immediate problem would be
solved as soon as they add the former.

			regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Thursday, September 11, 2003 23:42:53 -0400 Tom Lane 
 wrote:

> Bruce Momjian  writes:
>> Looking at the code, I wonder if we already have folks not using
>> spinlocks, and not even knowing it.  I don't think problem reports will
>> be limited to new platforms.
>
> Very likely --- I heard from someone recently who was trying to run
> HPUX/Itanium.  After we got past the hard-wired assumption that HPUX
> == HPPA, it was still giving lousy performance for lack of spinlocks.
> I like the part of the patch that is in-your-face about that.
>
>> I just learned from Larry that Unixware defines intel as i386, not
>> __i386 or __i386__, at least of the native SCO compiler that he uses.
>
> [blink]  Namespace infringement 'r us, huh?
Yeah.  I **DO** have SCO's ear on it, but I don't know how far I'll get, 
plus there are
TONS of pre-whenever-we-get-it-fixed out there.


>
>> I am going to test for __cpu, __cpu__, and cpu on non-gcc compiler for
>> consistency.  It is only done in one place in the patch, so that should
>> be good.
>
> Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
> Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.
that's reasonable.  At least until 64-bit UnixWare. :-)

(announced at SCOForum).


>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>



-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

Re: [PATCHES] Reorganization of spinlock defines

--On Friday, September 12, 2003 00:00:43 -0400 Tom Lane  
wrote:

> Larry Rosenman  writes:
>>> Please, only the first two.  Make the Unixware template add __i386__.
>>> Don't add assumptions about valid user-namespace symbols.
>
>> that's reasonable.  At least until 64-bit UnixWare. :-)
>
> Even then, I'd prefer to put the necessary kluge into template/unixware
> or Makefile.unixware or port/unixware.h, rather than add a risky
> assumption globally.
Sure, and 64-bit UnixWare is 2 years out any way.

Hopefully we can get reasonableness by then.

I've already sent a whine-a-gram to the compiler guys at SCO.

LER

>
> 			regards, tom lane



-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749