Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jJcJKH09Wa7_mp7xikAryv=rgjO0RArZ_3VoCKwWK_nuA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11 August 2015 at 11:39, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 10:55, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> What "tricks" are being used??
>
> Please explain why taking 2 locks is bad here, yet works fine elsewhere.
>

One thing that could be risky in this new scheme of locking
is that now in functions TransactionIdSetPageStatus and
TransactionIdSetStatusBit, we modify slru's shared state with Control Lock
in Shared mode whereas I think it is mandated in the code that those
should be modified with ControlLock in Exlusive mode.  This could have
some repercussions.

Do you know of any? This is a technical forum, so if we see a problem we say what it is, and if we don't, that's usually classed as a positive point in a code review. 

One of the main reason of saying this is that it is written in File
level comments in slru.c that for accessing (examine or modify)
the shared state, Control lock *must* be held in Exclusive mode
except in function SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly().  So, whereas
I agree that I should think more about if there is any breakage due
to patch, but I don't find any explanation either in your e-mail or in
patch why it is safe to modify the state after patch when it was not
before.  If you think it is safe, then atleast modify comments in
slru.c.  
 
"except"...

I explained that a reader will never be reading data that is concurrently changed by a writer, so it was safe to break the general rule for this specific case only.

Yes, I will modify comments in the patch.
 
Another thing is that in this flow, with patch there will be three locks
(we take per-buffer locks before doing I/O) that will get involved rather than
two, so one effect of this patch will be that currently while doing I/O,
concurrent committers will be allowed to proceed as we release ControlLock
before doing the same whereas with Patch, they will not be allowed as they
are blocked by CommitLock.  Now may be this scenario is less common and
doesn't matter much if the patch improves the more common scenario,
however this is an indication of what Andres tries to highlight that having more
locks for this might make patch more complicated.

It's easy to stripe the CommitLock in that case, if it is a problem.

Sure, I think other places in code that take both the other locks also
needs to be checked for updation.

 Not sure what that means, but there are no other places calling CommitLock

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [patch] A \pivot command for psql