Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JiP-yCyNXwLTxA29ErkWC=VNBk4zjF2BZuLkKEaheoew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A while back, I submitted a minor tweak to the clock sweep so that,
> instead of spinlocking every single buffer header as it swept it just
> did a single TAS as a kind of a trylock and punted to the next buffer
> if the test failed on the principle there's not good reason to hang
> around.  You only spin if you passed the first test; that should
> reduce the likelihood of actual spinning to approximately zero.  I
> still maintain there's no reason not to do that (I couldn't show a
> benefit but that was because mapping list locking was masking any
> clock sweep contention at that time).

If you feel that can now show the benefit, then I think you can rebase
it for the coming commit fest (which is going to start today).


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup: unify checks for catalog modification
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion