Re: Shared locking in slru.c

From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shared locking in slru.c
Date: 2005-12-02 10:09:41
Message-ID: t870p1d9ooqa3j6juglrv4vvq68gh7ncue@4ax.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:53:13 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>The way the attached patch attacks this is for the shared-lock access
>case to simply set the page's LRU counter to zero, without bumping up
>the LRU counters of the other pages as the normal adjustment would do.

If you still plan to do this, you might also want to revert the
micro-optimisation intruduced by the original SLRU patch:

| Apart from refactoring I made a little change to SlruRecentlyUsed,
| formerly ClogRecentlyUsed: It now skips incrementing lru_counts, if
| slotno is already the LRU slot, thus saving a few CPU cycles.

|+#define SlruRecentlyUsed(shared, slotno) \
|+ do { \
|+ if ((shared)->page_lru_count[slotno] != 0) { \
|+ int iilru; \
|+ for (iilru = 0; iilru < NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS; iilru++) \
|+ (shared)->page_lru_count[iilru]++; \
|+ (shared)->page_lru_count[slotno] = 0; \
|+ } \
|+ } while (0)

Otherwise you could end up with a stable state of several pages having
lru_count == 0.
Servus
Manfred

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anuj Tripathi 2005-12-02 10:45:55 Graphics in postgress using GTK
Previous Message Csaba Nagy 2005-12-02 10:07:06 Re: generalizing the planner knobs