Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

lwlocks and starvation

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: lwlocks and starvation
Date: 2004-11-24 08:23:31
Message-ID: 1101284611.12045.49.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
LWLockRelease() currently does something like (simplifying a lot):

    acquire lwlock spinlock
    decrement lock count
    if lock is free
      if first waiter in queue is waiting for exclusive lock,
      awaken him; else, walk through the queue and awaken
      all the shared waiters until we reach an exclusive waiter
    end if
    release lwlock spinlock

This has the nice property that locks are granted in FIFO order. Is it
essential that we maintain that property? If not, we could instead walk
through the wait queue and awaken *all* the shared waiters, and get a
small improvement in throughput.

I can see that this might starve exclusive waiters; however, we allow
the following:

    Proc A => LWLockAcquire(lock, LW_SHARED); -- succeeds
    Proc B => LWLockAcquire(lock, LW_EXCLUSIVE); -- blocks
    Proc C => LWLockAcquire(lock, LW_SHARED); -- succeeds

i.e. we don't *really* follow strict FIFO order anyway.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2004-11-24 08:26:41
Subject: Re: Bitmap index
Previous:From: Arnold.ZhuDate: 2004-11-24 07:20:30
Subject: Re: How to make @id or $id as parameter name in plpgsql, is it available?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group