LWLock Queue Jumping - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject LWLock Queue Jumping
Date
Msg-id f67928030908281444i2670f427p16699c10abd4517a@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: LWLock Queue Jumping  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:07:32 +0100
Subject: LWLock Queue Jumping

WALInsertLock is heavily contended and likely always will be even if we
apply some of the planned fixes.

Some callers of WALInsertLock are more important than others

* Writing new Clog or Multixact pages (serialized by ClogControlLock)
* For Hot Standby, writing SnapshotData (serialized by ProcArrayLock)

In these cases it seems like we can skip straight to the front of the
WALInsertLock queue without problem.

Most other items cannot be safely reordered, possibly no other items.

We already re-order the lock queues when we hold shared locks, so we
know in principle it is OK to do so. This is an extension of that
thought.

Implementing this would do much to remove my objection to performance
issues associated with simplifying the Hot Standby patch, as recently
suggested by Heikki.

Possible? If so, we can discuss implementation. No worries if not, but
just a side thought that may be fruitful.

I'd previously implemented this just by copying and pasting and making some changes, perhaps not the most desirable way but I thought adding another parameter to all existing invocations would be a bit excessive.  The attached patch will convert the existing LWLockAcquire into LWLockAcquire_head, rather than adding a new function.  Sorry if that is not the optimal way to send this, I wanted to make it easy to see just the changes, even though the functions aren't technically the same thing anymore.

I've tested it fairly thoroughly, in the context of using it in AdvanceXLInsertBuffer for acquiring the WALWriteLock.

Jeff

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add YAML option to explain
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Linux LSB init script