References: <87plyhvama.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+Tgmob=RA_y4shbtodwRRhC9uwDSWnBHY=3EvnJ_txtAWoD9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <489987.1704381735@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa=q9KZ-2u8Cx35D_7HSa8YKzvfA5ffvd876_UZ2LEU3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <498328.1704386013@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaA2uqsozTj9UDNrXTKWiUz1kW9eQsKiCr9ZvPwaFGFDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240104225403.dgmbbfffmm3srpgq@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <871qaso7ub.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmoabLxQCbnatgdcO_VZKQtZqnj4c0zg3ovavqBZBh+QYcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sf37mdqq.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmobMJLKnsR_pLnOmRdb7+AzCLdNPFOqG4TAatU1F_4gyaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7dum084.fsf@163.com>
 <CAEze2WggP-2Dhocmdhp-LxBzic=MXRgGA_tmv1G_9n-PDt2MQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87h6jkmucz.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmoYJoFsn3Mqhj0_0HNgVjtPfahJMgF2Pb7wzDcRFvZuK9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <8734uz17va.fsf@163.com> <87o7diyf3z.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmoZNo2hedpnyhr3bMUZ+grzp1+2B4daG6O_NeJPh0QnhMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87edeexznn.fsf@163.com>
 <CA+TgmobPBwwVmtth1e0mJYKyLnwN1v7d1OWJ2toiwFrnFAOo-w@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.7; emacs 29.1
From: Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Andres Freund
 <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro
 <tmunro@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: the s_lock_stuck on perform_spin_delay
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 10:51:43 +0800
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobPBwwVmtth1e0mJYKyLnwN1v7d1OWJ2toiwFrnFAOo-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a5p2xc2v.fsf@163.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/87a5p2xc2v.fsf%40163.com>
Precedence: bulk


Hi,

Here is the summary of the open-items, it would be great that Andres and
Matthias have a look at this when they have time.

1. Shall we treat the LockBufHdr as a SpinLock usage.

>> The LockBufHdr also used init_local_spin_delay / perform_spin_delay
>> infrastruce and then it has the same issue like ${subject}, it is pretty
>> like the code in s_lock; Based on my current knowledge, I think we
>> should add the check there.
>
> I'd like to hear from Andres, if possible. @Andres: Should these
> sanity checks apply only to spin locks per se, or also to buffer
> header locks?
>

2. Where shall we put the START/END_SPIN_LOCK() into? Personally I'd
like spin.h. One of the reasons is 'misc' usually makes me think they
are something not well categoried, and hence many different stuffs are
put together. 

>> they were put into spin.h in v1 but later move to miscadmin.h at [1].
>> [1]
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2WggP-2Dhocmdhp-LxBzic%3DMXRgGA_tmv1G_9n-PDt2MQg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the right thing to do is here, and the
> answer may depend on the previous question. But I disagree with
> Matthias -- I don't think miscadmin.h can be the right answer
> regardless.
>

-- 
Best Regards
Andy Fan