From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Дмитрий Дегтярёв <degtyaryov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |
Date: | 2013-09-27 21:53:59 |
Message-ID: | 20130927215359.GD9819@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
What confuses me is that pg_read_barrier() is just a compiler barrier on
x86[-64] in barrier.h. According to my knowledge it needs to be an
lfence or the full barrier?
The linked papers from Paul McKenney - which are a great read - seem to
agree?
On 2013-09-27 23:12:17 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-27 23:28:37 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > The function RecoveryInProgress() function does just one load, to read the
> > variable, and wouldn't even need a barrier by itself. The other load or
> > store that needs to be protected by the barrier happens in the caller,
> > before or after the function, and we can't say for sure if it's a load or a
> > store. So, let's use pg_memory_barrier().
>
> The caller uses a spinlock, so it's guaranteed to write out before the
> spinlock is released. A write barrier (the spinlock in the startup
> process) should always be paired by a read barrier.
s/caller/startup process/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2013-09-27 22:17:56 | Re: Extra functionality to createuser |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-09-27 21:39:47 | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition |