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: | Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Btree runtime recovery. Stuck spins. |
Date: | 2001-02-09 18:12:56 |
Message-ID: | 200102091812.NAA13636@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Hm. It was OK to use spinlocks to control buffer access when the max
> > delay was just the time to read or write one disk page. But it sounds
> > like we've pushed the code way past what it was designed to do. I think
> > this needs some careful thought, not just a quick hack like increasing
> > the timeout interval.
>
> After thinking more about this, simply increasing S_MAX_BUSY is clearly
> NOT a good answer. If you are under heavy load then processes that are
> spinning are making things worse, not better, because they are sucking
> CPU cycles that would be better spent on the processes that are holding
> the locks.
Our spinlocks don't go into an infinite test loop, right? They back off
and retest at random intervals.
I can't imagine we don't have similar btree lock needs other places in
the code were a solution already exists.
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2001-02-09 18:15:39 | Re: Open 7.1 items |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-09 18:05:18 | Re: Btree runtime recovery. Stuck spins. |