Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp> writes:
> > Ok, here is a pgbench (-s 10) result on an AIX 5L box (4 way).
> > "7.2 with patch" is for the previous patch. "7.2 with patch (revised)"
> > is for the this patch. I see virtually no improvement.
> 
> If anything, the revised patch seems to make things slightly worse :-(.
> That agrees with my measurement on a single CPU.
> 
> I am inclined to use the revised patch anyway, though, because I think
> it will be less prone to starvation (ie, a process repeatedly being
> awoken but failing to get the lock).  The original form of lwlock.c
> guaranteed that a writer could not be locked out by large numbers of
> readers, but I had to abandon that goal in the first version of the
> patch.  The second version still doesn't keep the writer from being
> blocked by active readers, but it does ensure that readers queued up
> behind the writer won't be released.  Comments?

Yes, I agree with the later patch.

> 
> > Please note that xy axis are now in log scale.
> 
> Seems much easier to read this way.  Thanks.

Yes, good idea. I want to read up on gnuplot. I knew how to use it long
ago.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026