Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock
От | Pailloncy Jean-Gerard |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b245a785b093009a1c96136409532dbe@rilk.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Thinking about breaking up the BufMgrLock (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> What operations does 2Q require on the shared lists? (Assuming that's > the replacement policy we're going with.) Depending on how complex the > list modifications are, non-blocking algorithms might be worth > considering. For example, to remove a node from the middle of a linked > list can be done via atomic CAS; you need to redo the CAS in the > presence of a concurrent modification of the particular node you're > trying to modify, but that means we are contending over individual list > nodes, not the list as a whole. If you plan to use CAS to have lock-free algorithm, there was a thread about concurrent lock-free algorithm few days ago. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-01/msg00736.php I give some references about new paper I found about wait-free algorithm. I think we can adapt to the cache list the GC wait-free discribe http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~phs/TechnicalReports/Sun04_WaitFreeRef.pdf In a general manner, I think a deep study of these recent works on wait-free algorithms will be a big win. Cordialement, Jean-Gérard Pailloncy
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: