From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: lwlocks and starvation |
Date: | 2004-12-02 02:51:25 |
Message-ID: | 200412020251.iB22pPn03517@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil, where are we on this? Should we add comments? Add a TODO? A patch?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 23:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It is not a 100% solution because it does not
> > cover the case where a waiting exclusive locker is released, then a new
> > shared locker arrives at the lock before the exclusive locker is given
> > any cycles to acquire the lock. However I don't see any cure for the
> > latter problem that's not worse than the disease
>
> Yeah, I don't think this is a problem -- eventually the exclusive waiter
> will win the coin flip anyway.
>
> > On the other hand we might consider that this isn't a big problem and
> > just leave things as they are. We haven't seen any indication that
> > starvation is a real problem in practice, and so it might be better to
> > avoid extra trips through the kernel scheduler.
>
> Yes, I'm a little concerned about applying a patch to address what is,
> so far, an entirely academic concern -- especially if it might hurt
> performance.
>
> -Neil
>
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-12-02 02:53:46 | Re: Please release (was Re: nodeAgg perf tweak) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-02 02:47:48 | Re: Index used incorrectly with regular expressions on 7.4.6 |