Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pailloncy Jean-Gerard
Subject Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock
Date
Msg-id b245a785b093009a1c96136409532dbe@rilk.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> What operations does 2Q require on the shared lists? (Assuming that's
> the replacement policy we're going with.) Depending on how complex the
> list modifications are, non-blocking algorithms might be worth
> considering. For example, to remove a node from the middle of a linked
> list can be done via atomic CAS; you need to redo the CAS in the
> presence of a concurrent modification of the particular node you're
> trying to modify, but that means we are contending over individual list
> nodes, not the list as a whole.
If you plan to use CAS to have lock-free algorithm, there was a thread
about concurrent lock-free algorithm few days ago.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-01/msg00736.php

I give some references about new paper I found about wait-free
algorithm.

I think we can adapt to the cache list the GC wait-free discribe
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~phs/TechnicalReports/Sun04_WaitFreeRef.pdf

In a general manner, I think a deep study of these recent works on
wait-free algorithms will be a big win.

Cordialement,
Jean-Gérard Pailloncy



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard
Date:
Subject: Concurrent wait-lock
Next
From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0)