On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > Another point is I think it will be better to protect > > StrategyControl->completePasses with victimbuf_lck rather than > > freelist_lck, as when we are going to update it we will already be > > holding the victimbuf_lck and it doesn't make much sense to release > > the victimbuf_lck and reacquire freelist_lck to update it. > > I'm rather concerned by this cavalier assumption that we can protect > fields a,b,c with one lock and fields x,y,z in the same struct with some > other lock.
In some cases, it could be beneficial especially when a,b,c are going to be more frequently accessed as compare to x,y,z. > A minimum requirement for that to work safely at all is that the fields > are of atomically fetchable/storable widths; which might be okay here > but it's a restriction that bears thinking about (and documenting). > > But quite aside from safety, the fields are almost certainly going to > be in the same cache line which means contention between processes that > are trying to fetch or store them concurrently. I think patch will reduce the contention for some of such variables (which are accessed during clock sweep) as it will minimize the need to perform clock sweep by backends. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
