> Since this seems to help and we'd like to fix the landisk issue before > release, going back to the mail with the diff...
[first two chunks] > I'm not sure this makes sense. On MP systems both wakeups happen > while we're holding a mutex and our mutexes aren't fair. So I don't > think there is a strong relationship between the order of those > wakeups and which waiter gets to grab the mutex first. And on landisk > we don't have low memory... > > So can we shelve this bit until after release (and maybe until we've > made our mutexes a bit more fair)? I had already reported that part makes the problem worse. [third chunk] > This bit makes sense to me. Does this bit alone fix the issue? Can > we get this tested widely? As reported, that bit alone fixes the issue.
