| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |
| Date: | 2015-12-17 15:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20151217151418.GB2224@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-12-17 09:47:57 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I'd consider using a LWLock instead of a spinlock here. I've seen this
> > contended in a bunch of situations, and the queued behaviour, combined
> > with directed wakeups on the OS level, ought to improve the worst case
> > behaviour measurably.
>
> Amit had the idea a while back of trying to replace the HASHHDR mutex
> with something based on atomic ops. It seems hard to avoid the
> attendant A-B-A problems but maybe there's a way.
It'd really like to see it being replaced by a queuing lock
(i.e. lwlock) before we go there. And then maybe partition the freelist,
and make nentries an atomic. Just doing those might already be good
enough and should be a lot easier.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-12-17 15:34:47 | Re: WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-17 14:47:57 | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |