Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

​Agree. This patch need to be carefully verified. Current experiments just show that it is promising direction for improvement. I'll come with better version of this patch.

Also, after testing on large machines I have another observation to share. For now, LWLock doesn't guarantee that exclusive lock would be ever acquired (assuming each shared lock duration is finite). It because when there is no exclusive lock, new shared locks aren't queued and LWLock state is changed directly. Thus, process which tries to acquire exclusive lock have to wait for gap in shared locks.

I think this has the potential to starve exclusive lockers in worst case.

 

But with high concurrency for shared lock that could happen very rare, say never.

We did see this on big Intel machine in practice. pgbench -S gets shared ProcArrayLock very frequently. Since some number of connections is achieved, new connections hangs on getting exclusive ProcArrayLock. I think we could do some workaround for this problem. For instance, when exclusive lock waiter have some timeout it could set some special bit which prevents others to get new shared locks.

I think timeout based solution would lead to giving priority to

exclusive lock waiters (assume a case where each of exclusive

lock waiter timesout one after another) and make shared lockers

wait and a timer based solution might turn out to be costly for

general cases where wait is not so long.

​Since all lwlock waiters are ordered in the queue, we can let only first waiter to set this bit.​

Thats okay, but still every time an Exclusive locker woke up, the

threshold time for its wait might be already over and it will set the

bit.  In theory, that looks okay, but as compare to current algorithm

it will make more shared lockers to be added into wait queue.

 

Anyway, once bit is set, shared lockers would be added to the queue. They would get the lock in queue order.

 

Ye thats right, but I think in general the solution to this problem

should be don't let any Exclusive locker to starve and still allow

as many shared lockers as possible.  I think here it is important

how we define starving, should it be based on time or something

else?  I find timer based solution somewhat less suitable, but may

be it is okay, if there is no other better way.

Another way could be to

check if the Exclusive locker needs to go for repeated wait for a

couple of times, then we can set such a bit.

​I'm not sure what do you mean by repeated wait. Do you mean exclusive locker was waked twice up by timeout?

I mean to say once the Exclusive locker is woken up, it again

re-tries to acquire the lock as it does today, but if it finds that the

number of retries is greater than certain threshold (let us say 10),

then we sit the bit.