From: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock |
Date: | 2020-11-24 10:36:58 |
Message-ID: | 45bc9909-8f6c-74d8-83ac-d86d35e147cc@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.09.2020 20:13, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-09-04 10:05:45 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2020-09-03 14:34:52 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Looking at patterns like this
>>>
>>> if (XLogCtl->LogwrtRqst.Write < EndPos)
>>> XLogCtl->LogwrtRqst.Write = EndPos;
>>>
>>> It seems possible to implement with
>>>
>>> do {
>>> XLogRecPtr currwrite;
>>>
>>> currwrite = pg_atomic_read_u64(LogwrtRqst.Write);
>>> if (currwrite > EndPos)
>>> break; // already done by somebody else
>>> if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64(LogwrtRqst.Write,
>>> currwrite, EndPos))
>>> break; // successfully updated
>>> } while (true);
>>>
>>> This assumes that LogwrtRqst.Write never goes backwards, so it doesn't
>>> seem good material for a general routine.
>>>
>>> This *seems* correct to me, though this is muddy territory to me. Also,
>>> are there better ways to go about this?
>> Hm, I was thinking that we'd first go for reading it without a spinlock,
>> but continuing to write it as we currently do.
>>
>> But yea, I can't see an issue with what you propose here. I personally
>> find do {} while () weird and avoid it when not explicitly useful, but
>> that's extremely minor, obviously.
> Re general routine: On second thought, it might actually be worth having
> it. Even just for LSNs - there's plenty places where it's useful to
> ensure a variable is at least a certain size. I think I would be in
> favor of a general helper function.
Do you mean by general helper function something like this?
void
swap_lsn(XLogRecPtr old_value, XLogRecPtr new_value, bool to_largest)
{
while (true) {
XLogRecPtr currwrite;
currwrite = pg_atomic_read_u64(old_value);
if (to_largest)
if (currwrite > new_value)
break; /* already done by somebody else */
else
if (currwrite < new_value)
break; /* already done by somebody else */
if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64(old_value,
currwrite, new_value))
break; /* already done by somebody else */
}
}
which will be called like
swap_lsn(XLogCtl->LogwrtRqst.Write, EndPos, true);
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
This CF entry was inactive for a while. Alvaro, are you going to
continue working on it?
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-24 10:52:08 | Re: scram-sha-256 broken with FIPS and OpenSSL 1.0.2 |
Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2020-11-24 10:11:38 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |