On 2015-08-05 11:22:55 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2015-08-02 17:04:07 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I've attached a version of the patch that should address Heikki's
> > > concern. It imo also improves the API and increases debugga
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-02 17:04:07 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I've attached a version of the patch that should address Heikki's
> > concern. It imo also improves the API and increases debuggability by not
> > having stale variable values in the vari
On 2015-08-02 12:33:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I plan to commit the patch tomorrow, so it's included in alpha2.
>
> Please try to commit anything you want in alpha2 *today*. I'd
> prefer to see some successful buildfarm cycles on such patches
> before we wrap.
Ok, wil
Andres Freund writes:
> I plan to commit the patch tomorrow, so it's included in alpha2.
Please try to commit anything you want in alpha2 *today*. I'd
prefer to see some successful buildfarm cycles on such patches
before we wrap.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-ha
Hi Jeff, Heikki,
On 2015-07-31 09:48:28 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I had run it for 24 hours, while it usually took less than 8 hours to look
> up before. I did see it within a few minutes one time when I checked out a
> new HEAD and then forgot to re-apply your or Heikki's patch.
>
> But now I'
On 2015-08-02 17:04:07 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've attached a version of the patch that should address Heikki's
> concern. It imo also improves the API and increases debuggability by not
> having stale variable values in the variables anymore. (also attached is
> a minor optimization that He
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-30 09:03:01 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andres Freund
> wrote:
> > > What do you think about something roughly like the attached?
> > >
> >
> > I've not evaluated the code, but applying it does s
On 07/30/2015 09:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-30 17:36:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
In 9.4, LWLockAcquire holds the spinlock when it marks the lock as held,
until it has updated the variable. And LWLockWaitForVar() holds the spinlock
when it checks that the lock is held and that
On 2015-07-30 09:03:01 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > What do you think about something roughly like the attached?
> >
>
> I've not evaluated the code, but applying it does solve the problem I was
> seeing.
Cool, thanks for testing! How long
On 2015-07-30 17:36:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In 9.4, LWLockAcquire holds the spinlock when it marks the lock as held,
> until it has updated the variable. And LWLockWaitForVar() holds the spinlock
> when it checks that the lock is held and that the variable's value matches.
> So it can
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 14:22:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's
> value
> > > after queueing. Want to write the patch,
On 07/29/2015 09:35 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 20:23:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Backend A has called LWLockWaitForVar(X) on a lock, and is now waiting on
it. The lock holder releases the lock, and wakes up A. But before A wakes up
and sees that the lock is free, another back
On 2015-07-29 20:23:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Backend A has called LWLockWaitForVar(X) on a lock, and is now waiting on
> it. The lock holder releases the lock, and wakes up A. But before A wakes up
> and sees that the lock is free, another backend acquires the lock again. It
> runs LWL
On 07/29/2015 04:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 14:22:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
I'll try. S
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 09:23:32 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes
> wrote:
> > I've reproduced it again against commit b2ed8edeecd715c8a23ae462.
> >
> > It took 5 hours on a 8 core "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650
On 2015-07-29 09:23:32 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've reproduced it again against commit b2ed8edeecd715c8a23ae462.
>
> It took 5 hours on a 8 core "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650".
>
> I also reproduced it in 3 hours on the same machine with bo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2015-07-19 11:49:14 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > After applying this patch to commit fdf28853ae6a397497b79f, it has
>> survived
>> > testing long enough to convince that
On 2015-07-29 14:22:23 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
> > after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
>
> I'll try. Shouldn't be too hard.
What do you t
On 2015-07-29 15:14:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Ah, ok, that should work, as long as you also re-check the variable's value
> after queueing. Want to write the patch, or should I?
I'll try. Shouldn't be too hard.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql
On 07/29/2015 03:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-29 14:55:54 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
In an earlier email you say:
After the spinlock is released above, but before the LWLockQueueSelf() call,
it's possible that another backend comes i
On 2015-07-29 14:55:54 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >In an earlier email you say:
> >>After the spinlock is released above, but before the LWLockQueueSelf() call,
> >>it's possible that another backend comes in, acquires the lock, changes the
> >
On 07/29/2015 02:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-07-15 18:44:03 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
was straightforward because you held the spinl
Hi,
Finally getting to this.
On 2015-07-15 18:44:03 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
> atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
> was straightforward because you held the spinlock anyway,
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-07-19 11:49:14 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > After applying this patch to commit fdf28853ae6a397497b79f, it has
> survived
> > testing long enough to convince that this fixes the problem.
>
> What was the actual workload break
Hi,
On 2015-07-19 11:49:14 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> After applying this patch to commit fdf28853ae6a397497b79f, it has survived
> testing long enough to convince that this fixes the problem.
What was the actual workload breaking with the bug? I ran a small
variety and I couldn't reproduce it ye
On 2015-07-16 PM 04:03, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>>
>> Both. Here's the patch.
>>
>> Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
>> atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
>> w
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Both. Here's the patch.
>>
>> Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the
>> lock atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability chang
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 11:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> On 2015-06-30 22:19:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>>> Hm. Right. A recheck of the value after the queuing should be sufficient
to fix? That's how we deal with the exact sam
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> Both. Here's the patch.
>
> Previously, LWLockAcquireWithVar set the variable associated with the lock
> atomically with acquiring it. Before the lwlock-scalability changes, that
> was straightforward because you held the spinlock any
On 06/30/2015 11:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-30 22:19:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hm. Right. A recheck of the value after the queuing should be sufficient
to fix? That's how we deal with the exact same scenarios for the normal
lock state, so that shouldn't be very hard to add.
On 2015-06-30 22:19:02 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >Hm. Right. A recheck of the value after the queuing should be sufficient
> >to fix? That's how we deal with the exact same scenarios for the normal
> >lock state, so that shouldn't be very hard to add.
>
> Yeah. It's probably more efficien
On 06/30/2015 10:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-06-30 21:08:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
/*
* XXX: We can significantly optimize this on platforms
with 64bit
* atomics.
*/
On 2015-06-30 21:08:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > /*
> > * XXX: We can significantly optimize this on platforms
> > with 64bit
> > * atomics.
> > */
> > value = *valptr;
> >
On 06/30/2015 07:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jeff Janes wrote:
I've gotten the LWLock deadlock again. User backend 24841 holds the
WALInsertLocks 7 and is blocked attempting to acquire 6 . So it seems to
be violating the lock ordering rules (although I don't see that rule
spelled out in xlog
On 06/30/2015 07:05 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
Is there a way to use gdb to figure out who holds the lock they are
waiting
for?
Hav
Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've gotten the LWLock deadlock again. User backend 24841 holds the
> WALInsertLocks 7 and is blocked attempting to acquire 6 . So it seems to
> be violating the lock ordering rules (although I don't see that rule
> spelled out in xlog.c)
Hmm, interesting -- pg_stat_statemen
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > Is there a way to use gdb to figure out who holds the lock they are
>> waiting
>> > for?
>>
>> Have you considered building
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Is there a way to use gdb to figure out who holds the lock they are
> waiting
> > for?
>
> Have you considered building with LWLOCK_STATS defined, and LOCK_DEBUG
> defined? That might
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Is there a way to use gdb to figure out who holds the lock they are
waiting
> > for?
>
> Have you considered building with LWLOCK_STATS defined, and LOCK_DEBUG
> defined? That might
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> Is there a way to use gdb to figure out who holds the lock they are waiting
> for?
Have you considered building with LWLOCK_STATS defined, and LOCK_DEBUG
defined? That might do it.
Otherwise, I suggest dereferencing the "l" argument to
LWLockA
40 matches
Mail list logo
