Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock

From: Pailloncy Jean-Gerard <jg(at)rilk(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock
Date: 2005-02-07 22:57:28
Message-ID: b245a785b093009a1c96136409532dbe@rilk.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> What operations does 2Q require on the shared lists? (Assuming that's
> the replacement policy we're going with.) Depending on how complex the
> list modifications are, non-blocking algorithms might be worth
> considering. For example, to remove a node from the middle of a linked
> list can be done via atomic CAS; you need to redo the CAS in the
> presence of a concurrent modification of the particular node you're
> trying to modify, but that means we are contending over individual list
> nodes, not the list as a whole.
If you plan to use CAS to have lock-free algorithm, there was a thread
about concurrent lock-free algorithm few days ago.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-01/msg00736.php

I give some references about new paper I found about wait-free
algorithm.

I think we can adapt to the cache list the GC wait-free discribe
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~phs/TechnicalReports/Sun04_WaitFreeRef.pdf

In a general manner, I think a deep study of these recent works on
wait-free algorithms will be a big win.

Cordialement,
Jean-Gérard Pailloncy

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-02-07 23:23:43 Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock
Previous Message Pailloncy Jean-Gerard 2005-02-07 22:48:56 Concurrent wait-lock