Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2
Date: 2014-10-25 05:50:42
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JVhcYSzpZO4CszFiZR5jN33mSPijwauhrfei1TEnejiw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On 2014-10-24 15:59:30 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > and w.r.t performance it can lead extra
> > > > function call, few checks and I think in some cases even can
> > > > acquire/release spinlock.
> > >
> > > I fail to see how that could be the case.
> >
> > Won't it happen incase first backend sets releaseOK to true and another
> > backend which tries to wakeup waiters on lock will acquire spinlock
> > and tries to release the waiters.
>
> Sure, that can happen.
> > > And again, this is code that's
> > > only executed around a couple syscalls. And the cacheline will be
> > > touched around there *anyway*.
> >
> > Sure, but I think syscalls are required in case we need to wake any
> > waiter.
>
> It won't wake up a waiter if there's none on the list.

Yeap, but still it will acquire/release spinlock.

> > > > > And it'd be a pretty pointless
> > > > > behaviour, leading to useless increased contention. The only time
it'd
> > > > > make sense for X to be woken up is when it gets run faster than
the S
> > > > > processes.
> > > >
> > > > Do we get any major benefit by changing the logic of waking up
waiters?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > I think one downside I could see of new strategy is that the chance of
> > Exclusive waiter to take more time before getting woked up is increased
> > as now it will by pass Exclusive waiters in queue.
>
> Note that that *already* happens for any *new* shared locker that comes
> in. It doesn't really make sense to have share lockers queued behind the
> exclusive locker if others just go in front of it anyway.

Yeah, but I think it is difficult to avoid that behaviour as even when it
wakes
Exclusive locker, some new shared locker can comes in and acquire the
lock before Exclusive locker.

I think it is difficult to say what is the best waking strategy, as
priority for
Exclusive lockers is not clearly defined incase of LWLocks.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ali Akbar 2014-10-25 06:19:34 Re: Function array_agg(array)
Previous Message Ali Akbar 2014-10-25 03:29:59 Re: Function array_agg(array)