From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Date: | 2002-01-03 07:20:16 |
Message-ID: | 200201030720.g037KG121082@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I have thought of a further refinement to the patch I produced
> yesterday. Assume that there are multiple waiters blocked on (eg)
> BufMgrLock. After we release the first one, we want the currently
> running process to be able to continue acquiring and releasing the lock
> for as long as its time quantum holds out. But in the patch as given,
> each acquire/release cycle releases another waiter. This is probably
> not good.
>
> Attached is a modification that prevents additional waiters from being
> released until the first releasee has a chance to run and acquire the
> lock. Would you try this and see if it's better or not in your test
> cases? It doesn't seem to help on a single CPU, but maybe on multiple
> CPUs it'll make a difference.
>
> To try to make things simple, I've attached the mod in two forms:
> as a diff from current CVS, and as a diff from the previous patch.
This does seem like a nice optimization. I will try to test it tomorrow
but I doubt I will see any change on BSD/OS.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2002-01-03 07:21:05 | Re: pgcryto failures on freebsd/alpha |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-03 06:37:19 | Re: PGSQL - FAQ 4.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-03 07:55:26 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-01-03 01:18:25 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |