Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6232.978041542@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten (ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)) |
Ответы |
Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten
Re: Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first time is verboten |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes: > I wonder about the advisability of using spinlocks in user-level code > which might be swapped out any time. The reason we use spinlocks is that we expect the lock to succeed (not block) the majority of the time, and we want the code to fall through as quickly as possible in that case. In particular we do *not* want to expend a kernel call when we are able to acquire the lock immediately. It's not a true "spin" lock because we don't sit in a tight loop when we do have to wait for the lock --- we use select() to delay for a small interval before trying again. See src/backend/storage/buffer/s_lock.c. The design is reasonable, even if a little bit offbeat. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: