Jan Wieck wrote: > Manfred Spraul wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >>>Anyone see an attack path here? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Should we have one lock per hash bucket rather than one for the entire > >>hash? > >> > >> > > That's the simple part. The problem is the aging strategy: we need a > > strategy that doesn't rely on a global list that's updated after every > > lookup. If I understand the ARC code correctly, there is a > > STRAT_MRU_INSERT(cdb, STRAT_LIST_T2) that happen in every lookup. > > Moving the Cache Directory Block (cdb) on a hit to the MRU position of > the appropriate queue "is the bookkeeping" of this strategy. The whole > algorithm is based on it, and I don't see yet how to avoid that without > opening a huge can of worms that look like deadlocks. But I'll think > about it for a while.
If we can't eliminate the global lock, and we reduce its duration? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
