Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | YUriy Zhuravlev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1537028.u38UPtdPVp@dinodell обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 15 September 2015 16:50:44 Andres Freund wrote: > No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock. I'm sorry, I did not notice of a LockBufHdr. In this embodiment, your approach seems to be very similar to s_lock. Cycle in PinBuffer behaves like s_lock. In LockBufHdr: if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &state, state | BM_LOCKED)) conflict with: while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED)) from PinBuffer. Thus your patch does not remove the problem of competition for PinBuffer. We will try check your patch this week. >You're posting >things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond >to points raised. I think we're just talking about different things. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: