pg_query 4.2.1 → 6.1.0

data/ext/pg_query/include/postgres/storage/s_lock.h

@@ -0,0 +1,847 @@
+/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ *
+ * s_lock.h
+ *	   Hardware-dependent implementation of spinlocks.
+ *
+ *	NOTE: none of the macros in this file are intended to be called directly.
+ *	Call them through the hardware-independent macros in spin.h.
+ *
+ *	The following hardware-dependent macros must be provided for each
+ *	supported platform:
+ *
+ *	void S_INIT_LOCK(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Initialize a spinlock (to the unlocked state).
+ *
+ *	int S_LOCK(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Acquire a spinlock, waiting if necessary.
+ *		Time out and abort() if unable to acquire the lock in a
+ *		"reasonable" amount of time --- typically ~ 1 minute.
+ *		Should return number of "delays"; see s_lock.c
+ *
+ *	void S_UNLOCK(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Unlock a previously acquired lock.
+ *
+ *	bool S_LOCK_FREE(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Tests if the lock is free. Returns true if free, false if locked.
+ *		This does *not* change the state of the lock.
+ *
+ *	void SPIN_DELAY(void)
+ *		Delay operation to occur inside spinlock wait loop.
+ *
+ *	Note to implementors: there are default implementations for all these
+ *	macros at the bottom of the file.  Check if your platform can use
+ *	these or needs to override them.
+ *
+ *  Usually, S_LOCK() is implemented in terms of even lower-level macros
+ *	TAS() and TAS_SPIN():
+ *
+ *	int TAS(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Atomic test-and-set instruction.  Attempt to acquire the lock,
+ *		but do *not* wait.	Returns 0 if successful, nonzero if unable
+ *		to acquire the lock.
+ *
+ *	int TAS_SPIN(slock_t *lock)
+ *		Like TAS(), but this version is used when waiting for a lock
+ *		previously found to be contended.  By default, this is the
+ *		same as TAS(), but on some architectures it's better to poll a
+ *		contended lock using an unlocked instruction and retry the
+ *		atomic test-and-set only when it appears free.
+ *
+ *	TAS() and TAS_SPIN() are NOT part of the API, and should never be called
+ *	directly.
+ *
+ *	CAUTION: on some platforms TAS() and/or TAS_SPIN() may sometimes report
+ *	failure to acquire a lock even when the lock is not locked.  For example,
+ *	on Alpha TAS() will "fail" if interrupted.  Therefore a retry loop must
+ *	always be used, even if you are certain the lock is free.
+ *
+ *	It is the responsibility of these macros to make sure that the compiler
+ *	does not re-order accesses to shared memory to precede the actual lock
+ *	acquisition, or follow the lock release.  Prior to PostgreSQL 9.5, this
+ *	was the caller's responsibility, which meant that callers had to use
+ *	volatile-qualified pointers to refer to both the spinlock itself and the
+ *	shared data being accessed within the spinlocked critical section.  This
+ *	was notationally awkward, easy to forget (and thus error-prone), and
+ *	prevented some useful compiler optimizations.  For these reasons, we
+ *	now require that the macros themselves prevent compiler re-ordering,
+ *	so that the caller doesn't need to take special precautions.
+ *
+ *	On platforms with weak memory ordering, the TAS(), TAS_SPIN(), and
+ *	S_UNLOCK() macros must further include hardware-level memory fence
+ *	instructions to prevent similar re-ordering at the hardware level.
+ *	TAS() and TAS_SPIN() must guarantee that loads and stores issued after
+ *	the macro are not executed until the lock has been obtained.  Conversely,
+ *	S_UNLOCK() must guarantee that loads and stores issued before the macro
+ *	have been executed before the lock is released.
+ *
+ *	On most supported platforms, TAS() uses a tas() function written
+ *	in assembly language to execute a hardware atomic-test-and-set
+ *	instruction.  Equivalent OS-supplied mutex routines could be used too.
+ *
+ *	If no system-specific TAS() is available (ie, HAVE_SPINLOCKS is not
+ *	defined), then we fall back on an emulation that uses SysV semaphores
+ *	(see spin.c).  This emulation will be MUCH MUCH slower than a proper TAS()
+ *	implementation, because of the cost of a kernel call per lock or unlock.
+ *	An old report is that Postgres spends around 40% of its time in semop(2)
+ *	when using the SysV semaphore code.
+ *
+ *
+ * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2024, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
+ * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
+ *
+ *	  src/include/storage/s_lock.h
+ *
+ *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ */
+#ifndef S_LOCK_H
+#define S_LOCK_H
+
+#ifdef FRONTEND
+#error "s_lock.h may not be included from frontend code"
+#endif
+
+#ifdef HAVE_SPINLOCKS	/* skip spinlocks if requested */
+
+#if defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__INTEL_COMPILER)
+/*************************************************************************
+ * All the gcc inlines
+ * Gcc consistently defines the CPU as __cpu__.
+ * Other compilers use __cpu or __cpu__ so we test for both in those cases.
+ */
+
+/*----------
+ * Standard gcc asm format (assuming "volatile slock_t *lock"):
+
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"	instruction	\n"
+		"	instruction	\n"
+		"	instruction	\n"
+:		"=r"(_res), "+m"(*lock)		// return register, in/out lock value
+:		"r"(lock)					// lock pointer, in input register
+:		"memory", "cc");			// show clobbered registers here
+
+ * The output-operands list (after first colon) should always include
+ * "+m"(*lock), whether or not the asm code actually refers to this
+ * operand directly.  This ensures that gcc believes the value in the
+ * lock variable is used and set by the asm code.  Also, the clobbers
+ * list (after third colon) should always include "memory"; this prevents
+ * gcc from thinking it can cache the values of shared-memory fields
+ * across the asm code.  Add "cc" if your asm code changes the condition
+ * code register, and also list any temp registers the code uses.
+ *----------
+ */
+
+
+#ifdef __i386__		/* 32-bit i386 */
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	slock_t		_res = 1;
+
+	/*
+	 * Use a non-locking test before asserting the bus lock.  Note that the
+	 * extra test appears to be a small loss on some x86 platforms and a small
+	 * win on others; it's by no means clear that we should keep it.
+	 *
+	 * When this was last tested, we didn't have separate TAS() and TAS_SPIN()
+	 * macros.  Nowadays it probably would be better to do a non-locking test
+	 * in TAS_SPIN() but not in TAS(), like on x86_64, but no-one's done the
+	 * testing to verify that.  Without some empirical evidence, better to
+	 * leave it alone.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"	cmpb	$0,%1	\n"
+		"	jne		1f		\n"
+		"	lock			\n"
+		"	xchgb	%0,%1	\n"
+		"1: \n"
+:		"+q"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
+:		/* no inputs */
+:		"memory", "cc");
+	return (int) _res;
+}
+
+#define SPIN_DELAY() spin_delay()
+
+static __inline__ void
+spin_delay(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * This sequence is equivalent to the PAUSE instruction ("rep" is
+	 * ignored by old IA32 processors if the following instruction is
+	 * not a string operation); the IA-32 Architecture Software
+	 * Developer's Manual, Vol. 3, Section 7.7.2 describes why using
+	 * PAUSE in the inner loop of a spin lock is necessary for good
+	 * performance:
+	 *
+	 *     The PAUSE instruction improves the performance of IA-32
+	 *     processors supporting Hyper-Threading Technology when
+	 *     executing spin-wait loops and other routines where one
+	 *     thread is accessing a shared lock or semaphore in a tight
+	 *     polling loop. When executing a spin-wait loop, the
+	 *     processor can suffer a severe performance penalty when
+	 *     exiting the loop because it detects a possible memory order
+	 *     violation and flushes the core processor's pipeline. The
+	 *     PAUSE instruction provides a hint to the processor that the
+	 *     code sequence is a spin-wait loop. The processor uses this
+	 *     hint to avoid the memory order violation and prevent the
+	 *     pipeline flush. In addition, the PAUSE instruction
+	 *     de-pipelines the spin-wait loop to prevent it from
+	 *     consuming execution resources excessively.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		" rep; nop			\n");
+}
+
+#endif	 /* __i386__ */
+
+
+#ifdef __x86_64__		/* AMD Opteron, Intel EM64T */
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+/*
+ * On Intel EM64T, it's a win to use a non-locking test before the xchg proper,
+ * but only when spinning.
+ *
+ * See also Implementing Scalable Atomic Locks for Multi-Core Intel(tm) EM64T
+ * and IA32, by Michael Chynoweth and Mary R. Lee. As of this writing, it is
+ * available at:
+ * http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/implementing-scalable-atomic-locks-for-multi-core-intel-em64t-and-ia32-architectures
+ */
+#define TAS_SPIN(lock)    (*(lock) ? 1 : TAS(lock))
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	slock_t		_res = 1;
+
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"	lock			\n"
+		"	xchgb	%0,%1	\n"
+:		"+q"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
+:		/* no inputs */
+:		"memory", "cc");
+	return (int) _res;
+}
+
+#define SPIN_DELAY() spin_delay()
+
+static __inline__ void
+spin_delay(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Adding a PAUSE in the spin delay loop is demonstrably a no-op on
+	 * Opteron, but it may be of some use on EM64T, so we keep it.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		" rep; nop			\n");
+}
+
+#endif	 /* __x86_64__ */
+
+
+/*
+ * On ARM and ARM64, we use __sync_lock_test_and_set(int *, int) if available.
+ *
+ * We use the int-width variant of the builtin because it works on more chips
+ * than other widths.
+ */
+#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__arm) || defined(__aarch64__)
+#ifdef HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+typedef int slock_t;
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	return __sync_lock_test_and_set(lock, 1);
+}
+
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock) __sync_lock_release(lock)
+
+/*
+ * Using an ISB instruction to delay in spinlock loops appears beneficial on
+ * high-core-count ARM64 processors.  It seems mostly a wash for smaller gear,
+ * and ISB doesn't exist at all on pre-v7 ARM chips.
+ */
+#if defined(__aarch64__)
+
+#define SPIN_DELAY() spin_delay()
+
+static __inline__ void
+spin_delay(void)
+{
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		" isb;				\n");
+}
+
+#endif	 /* __aarch64__ */
+#endif	 /* HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS */
+#endif	 /* __arm__ || __arm || __aarch64__ */
+
+
+/* S/390 and S/390x Linux (32- and 64-bit zSeries) */
+#if defined(__s390__) || defined(__s390x__)
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock)	   tas(lock)
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	int			_res = 0;
+
+	__asm__	__volatile__(
+		"	cs 	%0,%3,0(%2)		\n"
+:		"+d"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
+:		"a"(lock), "d"(1)
+:		"memory", "cc");
+	return _res;
+}
+
+#endif	 /* __s390__ || __s390x__ */
+
+
+#if defined(__sparc__)		/* Sparc */
+/*
+ * Solaris has always run sparc processors in TSO (total store) mode, but
+ * linux didn't use to and the *BSDs still don't. So, be careful about
+ * acquire/release semantics. The CPU will treat superfluous members as
+ * NOPs, so it's just code space.
+ */
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	slock_t		_res;
+
+	/*
+	 *	See comment in src/backend/port/tas/sunstudio_sparc.s for why this
+	 *	uses "ldstub", and that file uses "cas".  gcc currently generates
+	 *	sparcv7-targeted binaries, so "cas" use isn't possible.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"	ldstub	[%2], %0	\n"
+:		"=r"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
+:		"r"(lock)
+:		"memory");
+#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
+	/*
+	 * No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
+	 * requires a barrier.
+	 */
+#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
+	/* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
+	__asm__ __volatile__ ("stbar	 \n":::"memory");
+#else
+	/*
+	 * #LoadStore (RMO) | #LoadLoad (RMO) together are the appropriate acquire
+	 * barrier for sparcv8+ upwards.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__ ("membar #LoadStore | #LoadLoad \n":::"memory");
+#endif
+	return (int) _res;
+}
+
+#if defined(__sparcv7) || defined(__sparc_v7__)
+/*
+ * No stbar or membar available, luckily no actually produced hardware
+ * requires a barrier.  We fall through to the default gcc definition of
+ * S_UNLOCK in this case.
+ */
+#elif defined(__sparcv8) || defined(__sparc_v8__)
+/* stbar is available (and required for both PSO, RMO), membar isn't */
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+do \
+{ \
+	__asm__ __volatile__ ("stbar	 \n":::"memory"); \
+	*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0; \
+} while (0)
+#else
+/*
+ * #LoadStore (RMO) | #StoreStore (RMO, PSO) together are the appropriate
+ * release barrier for sparcv8+ upwards.
+ */
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+do \
+{ \
+	__asm__ __volatile__ ("membar #LoadStore | #StoreStore \n":::"memory"); \
+	*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0; \
+} while (0)
+#endif
+
+#endif	 /* __sparc__ */
+
+
+/* PowerPC */
+#if defined(__ppc__) || defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__ppc64__) || defined(__powerpc64__)
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+/* On PPC, it's a win to use a non-locking test before the lwarx */
+#define TAS_SPIN(lock)	(*(lock) ? 1 : TAS(lock))
+
+/*
+ * The second operand of addi can hold a constant zero or a register number,
+ * hence constraint "=&b" to avoid allocating r0.  "b" stands for "address
+ * base register"; most operands having this register-or-zero property are
+ * address bases, e.g. the second operand of lwax.
+ *
+ * NOTE: per the Enhanced PowerPC Architecture manual, v1.0 dated 7-May-2002,
+ * an isync is a sufficient synchronization barrier after a lwarx/stwcx loop.
+ * But if the spinlock is in ordinary memory, we can use lwsync instead for
+ * better performance.
+ */
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	slock_t _t;
+	int _res;
+
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+"	lwarx   %0,0,%3,1	\n"
+"	cmpwi   %0,0		\n"
+"	bne     1f			\n"
+"	addi    %0,%0,1		\n"
+"	stwcx.  %0,0,%3		\n"
+"	beq     2f			\n"
+"1: \n"
+"	li      %1,1		\n"
+"	b       3f			\n"
+"2: \n"
+"	lwsync				\n"
+"	li      %1,0		\n"
+"3: \n"
+:	"=&b"(_t), "=r"(_res), "+m"(*lock)
+:	"r"(lock)
+:	"memory", "cc");
+	return _res;
+}
+
+/*
+ * PowerPC S_UNLOCK is almost standard but requires a "sync" instruction.
+ * But we can use lwsync instead for better performance.
+ */
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+do \
+{ \
+	__asm__ __volatile__ ("	lwsync \n" ::: "memory"); \
+	*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0; \
+} while (0)
+
+#endif /* powerpc */
+
+
+#if defined(__mips__) && !defined(__sgi)	/* non-SGI MIPS */
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+/*
+ * Original MIPS-I processors lacked the LL/SC instructions, but if we are
+ * so unfortunate as to be running on one of those, we expect that the kernel
+ * will handle the illegal-instruction traps and emulate them for us.  On
+ * anything newer (and really, MIPS-I is extinct) LL/SC is the only sane
+ * choice because any other synchronization method must involve a kernel
+ * call.  Unfortunately, many toolchains still default to MIPS-I as the
+ * codegen target; if the symbol __mips shows that that's the case, we
+ * have to force the assembler to accept LL/SC.
+ *
+ * R10000 and up processors require a separate SYNC, which has the same
+ * issues as LL/SC.
+ */
+#if __mips < 2
+#define MIPS_SET_MIPS2	"       .set mips2          \n"
+#else
+#define MIPS_SET_MIPS2
+#endif
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	volatile slock_t *_l = lock;
+	int			_res;
+	int			_tmp;
+
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"       .set push           \n"
+		MIPS_SET_MIPS2
+		"       .set noreorder      \n"
+		"       .set nomacro        \n"
+		"       ll      %0, %2      \n"
+		"       or      %1, %0, 1   \n"
+		"       sc      %1, %2      \n"
+		"       xori    %1, 1       \n"
+		"       or      %0, %0, %1  \n"
+		"       sync                \n"
+		"       .set pop              "
+:		"=&r" (_res), "=&r" (_tmp), "+R" (*_l)
+:		/* no inputs */
+:		"memory");
+	return _res;
+}
+
+/* MIPS S_UNLOCK is almost standard but requires a "sync" instruction */
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+do \
+{ \
+	__asm__ __volatile__( \
+		"       .set push           \n" \
+		MIPS_SET_MIPS2 \
+		"       .set noreorder      \n" \
+		"       .set nomacro        \n" \
+		"       sync                \n" \
+		"       .set pop              " \
+:		/* no outputs */ \
+:		/* no inputs */	\
+:		"memory"); \
+	*((volatile slock_t *) (lock)) = 0; \
+} while (0)
+
+#endif /* __mips__ && !__sgi */
+
+
+#if defined(__hppa) || defined(__hppa__)	/* HP PA-RISC */
+/*
+ * HP's PA-RISC
+ *
+ * Because LDCWX requires a 16-byte-aligned address, we declare slock_t as a
+ * 16-byte struct.  The active word in the struct is whichever has the aligned
+ * address; the other three words just sit at -1.
+ */
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+typedef struct
+{
+	int			sema[4];
+} slock_t;
+
+#define TAS_ACTIVE_WORD(lock)	((volatile int *) (((uintptr_t) (lock) + 15) & ~15))
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	volatile int *lockword = TAS_ACTIVE_WORD(lock);
+	int			lockval;
+
+	/*
+	 * The LDCWX instruction atomically clears the target word and
+	 * returns the previous value.  Hence, if the instruction returns
+	 * 0, someone else has already acquired the lock before we tested
+	 * it (i.e., we have failed).
+	 *
+	 * Notice that this means that we actually clear the word to set
+	 * the lock and set the word to clear the lock.  This is the
+	 * opposite behavior from the SPARC LDSTUB instruction.  For some
+	 * reason everything that H-P does is rather baroque...
+	 *
+	 * For details about the LDCWX instruction, see the "Precision
+	 * Architecture and Instruction Reference Manual" (09740-90014 of June
+	 * 1987), p. 5-38.
+	 */
+	__asm__ __volatile__(
+		"	ldcwx	0(0,%2),%0	\n"
+:		"=r"(lockval), "+m"(*lockword)
+:		"r"(lockword)
+:		"memory");
+	return (lockval == 0);
+}
+
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+	do { \
+		__asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory"); \
+		*TAS_ACTIVE_WORD(lock) = -1; \
+	} while (0)
+
+#define S_INIT_LOCK(lock) \
+	do { \
+		volatile slock_t *lock_ = (lock); \
+		lock_->sema[0] = -1; \
+		lock_->sema[1] = -1; \
+		lock_->sema[2] = -1; \
+		lock_->sema[3] = -1; \
+	} while (0)
+
+#define S_LOCK_FREE(lock)	(*TAS_ACTIVE_WORD(lock) != 0)
+
+#endif	 /* __hppa || __hppa__ */
+
+
+/*
+ * If we have no platform-specific knowledge, but we found that the compiler
+ * provides __sync_lock_test_and_set(), use that.  Prefer the int-width
+ * version over the char-width version if we have both, on the rather dubious
+ * grounds that that's known to be more likely to work in the ARM ecosystem.
+ * (But we dealt with ARM above.)
+ */
+#if !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET)
+
+#if defined(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS)
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+typedef int slock_t;
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	return __sync_lock_test_and_set(lock, 1);
+}
+
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock) __sync_lock_release(lock)
+
+#elif defined(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS)
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+#define TAS(lock) tas(lock)
+
+typedef char slock_t;
+
+static __inline__ int
+tas(volatile slock_t *lock)
+{
+	return __sync_lock_test_and_set(lock, 1);
+}
+
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock) __sync_lock_release(lock)
+
+#endif	 /* HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS */
+
+#endif	/* !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) */
+
+
+/*
+ * Default implementation of S_UNLOCK() for gcc/icc.
+ *
+ * Note that this implementation is unsafe for any platform that can reorder
+ * a memory access (either load or store) after a following store.  That
+ * happens not to be possible on x86 and most legacy architectures (some are
+ * single-processor!), but many modern systems have weaker memory ordering.
+ * Those that do must define their own version of S_UNLOCK() rather than
+ * relying on this one.
+ */
+#if !defined(S_UNLOCK)
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+	do { __asm__ __volatile__("" : : : "memory");  *(lock) = 0; } while (0)
+#endif
+
+#endif	/* defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__INTEL_COMPILER) */
+
+
+/*
+ * ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+ * Platforms that use non-gcc inline assembly:
+ * ---------------------------------------------------------------------
+ */
+
+#if !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET)	/* We didn't trigger above, let's try here */
+
+/* These are in sunstudio_(sparc|x86).s */
+
+#if defined(__SUNPRO_C) && (defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__sparc__) || defined(__sparc))
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+
+#if defined(__i386) || defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__sparcv9) || defined(__sparcv8plus)
+typedef unsigned int slock_t;
+#else
+typedef unsigned char slock_t;
+#endif
+
+extern slock_t pg_atomic_cas(volatile slock_t *lock, slock_t with,
+									  slock_t cmp);
+
+#define TAS(a) (pg_atomic_cas((a), 1, 0) != 0)
+#endif
+
+
+#ifdef _MSC_VER
+typedef LONG slock_t;
+
+#define HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+#define TAS(lock) (InterlockedCompareExchange(lock, 1, 0))
+
+#define SPIN_DELAY() spin_delay()
+
+/* If using Visual C++ on Win64, inline assembly is unavailable.
+ * Use a _mm_pause intrinsic instead of rep nop.
+ */
+#if defined(_WIN64)
+static __forceinline void
+spin_delay(void)
+{
+	_mm_pause();
+}
+#else
+static __forceinline void
+spin_delay(void)
+{
+	/* See comment for gcc code. Same code, MASM syntax */
+	__asm rep nop;
+}
+#endif
+
+#include <intrin.h>
+#pragma intrinsic(_ReadWriteBarrier)
+
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	\
+	do { _ReadWriteBarrier(); (*(lock)) = 0; } while (0)
+
+#endif
+
+
+#endif	/* !defined(HAS_TEST_AND_SET) */
+
+
+/* Blow up if we didn't have any way to do spinlocks */
+#ifndef HAS_TEST_AND_SET
+#error PostgreSQL does not have native spinlock support on this platform.  To continue the compilation, rerun configure using --disable-spinlocks.  However, performance will be poor.  Please report this to pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org.
+#endif
+
+
+#else	/* !HAVE_SPINLOCKS */
+
+
+/*
+ * Fake spinlock implementation using semaphores --- slow and prone
+ * to fall foul of kernel limits on number of semaphores, so don't use this
+ * unless you must!  The subroutines appear in spin.c.
+ */
+typedef int slock_t;
+
+extern bool s_lock_free_sema(volatile slock_t *lock);
+extern void s_unlock_sema(volatile slock_t *lock);
+extern void s_init_lock_sema(volatile slock_t *lock, bool nested);
+extern int	tas_sema(volatile slock_t *lock);
+
+#define S_LOCK_FREE(lock)	s_lock_free_sema(lock)
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)	 s_unlock_sema(lock)
+#define S_INIT_LOCK(lock)	s_init_lock_sema(lock, false)
+#define TAS(lock)	tas_sema(lock)
+
+
+#endif	/* HAVE_SPINLOCKS */
+
+
+/*
+ * Default Definitions - override these above as needed.
+ */
+
+#if !defined(S_LOCK)
+#define S_LOCK(lock) \
+	(TAS(lock) ? s_lock((lock), __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__) : 0)
+#endif	 /* S_LOCK */
+
+#if !defined(S_LOCK_FREE)
+#define S_LOCK_FREE(lock)	(*(lock) == 0)
+#endif	 /* S_LOCK_FREE */
+
+#if !defined(S_UNLOCK)
+/*
+ * Our default implementation of S_UNLOCK is essentially *(lock) = 0.  This
+ * is unsafe if the platform can reorder a memory access (either load or
+ * store) after a following store; platforms where this is possible must
+ * define their own S_UNLOCK.  But CPU reordering is not the only concern:
+ * if we simply defined S_UNLOCK() as an inline macro, the compiler might
+ * reorder instructions from inside the critical section to occur after the
+ * lock release.  Since the compiler probably can't know what the external
+ * function s_unlock is doing, putting the same logic there should be adequate.
+ * A sufficiently-smart globally optimizing compiler could break that
+ * assumption, though, and the cost of a function call for every spinlock
+ * release may hurt performance significantly, so we use this implementation
+ * only for platforms where we don't know of a suitable intrinsic.  For the
+ * most part, those are relatively obscure platform/compiler combinations to
+ * which the PostgreSQL project does not have access.
+ */
+#define USE_DEFAULT_S_UNLOCK
+extern void s_unlock(volatile slock_t *lock);
+#define S_UNLOCK(lock)		s_unlock(lock)
+#endif	 /* S_UNLOCK */
+
+#if !defined(S_INIT_LOCK)
+#define S_INIT_LOCK(lock)	S_UNLOCK(lock)
+#endif	 /* S_INIT_LOCK */
+
+#if !defined(SPIN_DELAY)
+#define SPIN_DELAY()	((void) 0)
+#endif	 /* SPIN_DELAY */
+
+#if !defined(TAS)
+extern int	tas(volatile slock_t *lock);		/* in port/.../tas.s, or
+												 * s_lock.c */
+
+#define TAS(lock)		tas(lock)
+#endif	 /* TAS */
+
+#if !defined(TAS_SPIN)
+#define TAS_SPIN(lock)	TAS(lock)
+#endif	 /* TAS_SPIN */
+
+
+/*
+ * Platform-independent out-of-line support routines
+ */
+extern int s_lock(volatile slock_t *lock, const char *file, int line, const char *func);
+
+/* Support for dynamic adjustment of spins_per_delay */
+#define DEFAULT_SPINS_PER_DELAY  100
+
+extern void set_spins_per_delay(int shared_spins_per_delay);
+extern int	update_spins_per_delay(int shared_spins_per_delay);
+
+/*
+ * Support for spin delay which is useful in various places where
+ * spinlock-like procedures take place.
+ */
+typedef struct
+{
+	int			spins;
+	int			delays;
+	int			cur_delay;
+	const char *file;
+	int			line;
+	const char *func;
+} SpinDelayStatus;
+
+static inline void
+init_spin_delay(SpinDelayStatus *status,
+				const char *file, int line, const char *func)
+{
+	status->spins = 0;
+	status->delays = 0;
+	status->cur_delay = 0;
+	status->file = file;
+	status->line = line;
+	status->func = func;
+}
+
+#define init_local_spin_delay(status) init_spin_delay(status, __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__)
+extern void perform_spin_delay(SpinDelayStatus *status);
+extern void finish_spin_delay(SpinDelayStatus *status);
+
+#endif	 /* S_LOCK_H */