| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Condition variable live lock |
| Date: | 2018-01-08 02:21:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3MAW-LVDPmF+6nAUewC3_8mD3gcUPi-VrdBWnCQh7Qrw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Actually ... perhaps a better design would be to have
>> ConditionVariable[PrepareTo]Sleep auto-cancel any prepared sleep for
>> a different condition variable, analogously to what we just did in
>> ConditionVariableBroadcast, on the same theory that whenever control
>> returns to the other CV wait loop it can re-establish the relevant
>> state easily enough. I have to think that if the use of CVs grows
>> much, the existing restriction is going to become untenable anyway,
>> so why not just get rid of it?
>
> Concretely, as per attached.
+1 for the idea. Haven't looked at the code yet but I'll review this
and the proclist patch shortly.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-08 02:34:11 | Re: Condition variable live lock |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-01-08 01:38:20 | Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions |