On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 6:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Thanks for the review, all comments looks fine to me, replying to
those that need some clarification
> I wonder what's the deal with false sharing in the new
> bank_cur_lru_count array. Maybe instead of using LWLockPadded for
> bank_locks, we should have a new struct, with both the LWLock and the
> LRU counter; then pad *that* to the cacheline size. This way, both the
> lwlock and the counter come to the CPU running this code together.
Actually, the array lengths of both LWLock and the LRU counter are
different so I don't think we can move them to a common structure.
The length of the *buffer_locks array is equal to the number of slots,
the length of the *bank_locks array is Min (number_of_banks, 128), and
the length of the *bank_cur_lru_count array is number_of_banks.
> Looking at the coverage for this code,
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/access/transam/clog.c.gcov.html#413
> it seems in our test suites we never hit the case where there is
> anything in the "nextidx" field for commit groups. To be honest, I
> don't understand this group stuff, and so I'm doubly hesitant to go
> without any testing here. Maybe it'd be possible to use Michael
> Paquier's injection points somehow?
Sorry, but I am not aware of "Michael Paquier's injection" Is it
something already in the repo? Can you redirect me to some of the
example test cases if we already have them? Then I will try it out.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com