Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15742.1495723153@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics (Sokolov Yura <funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Sokolov Yura <funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru> writes: @@ -382,12 +358,8 @@ static inline uint64pg_atomic_fetch_and_u64_impl(volatile pg_atomic_uint64 *ptr, uint64 and_){ uint64old; - while (true) - { - old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr); - if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_)) - break; - } + old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr); + while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_)); return old;}#endif FWIW, I do not think that writing the loops like that is good style. It looks like a typo and will confuse readers. You could perhaps write the same code with better formatting, eg while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_)) /* skip */ ; but why not leave the formulation with while(true) and a break alone? (I take no position on whether moving the read of "old" outside the loop is a valid optimization.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: