Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten
Date
Msg-id 200101020759.CAA15836@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten  (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> writes:
> > One trick that may help is calling sched_yield(2) on a lock miss,
> > it's a POSIX call and quite new so you'd need a 'configure' test
> > for it.
> 
> The author of the current s_lock code seems to have thought that
> select() with a zero delay would do the equivalent of sched_yield().
> I'm not sure if that's true on very many kernels, if indeed any...
> 
> I doubt we could buy much by depending on sched_yield(); if you want
> to assume POSIX facilities, ISTM you might as well go for user-space
> semaphores and forget the whole TAS mechanism.


Another issue is that sched_yield brings in the pthreads library/hooks
on some OS's, which we certainly want to avoid.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Karel Zak
Date:
Subject: Re: Using Threads?
Next
From: "Oliver Elphick"
Date:
Subject: Re: Ignored PostgreSQL SET command