On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Antonin Houska <a...@cybertec.at> wrote:
>> During my experiments with parallel workers I sometimes saw the "master" and
>> worker process blocked. The master uses shm queue to send data to the worker,
>> both sides nowait==false. I concluded that the following happened:
>>
>> The worker process set itself as a receiver on the queue after
>> shm_mq_wait_internal() has completed its first check of "ptr", so this
>> function left sender's procLatch in reset state. But before the procLatch was
>> reset, the receiver still managed to read some data and set sender's
>> procLatch
>> to signal the reading, and eventually called its (receiver's) WaitLatch().
>>
>> So sender has effectively missed the receiver's notification and called
>> WaitLatch() too (if the receiver already waits on its latch, it does not help
>> for sender to call shm_mq_notify_receiver(): receiver won't do anything
>> because there's no new data in the queue).
>>
>> Below is my patch proposal.
>
> Another good catch. However, I would prefer to fix this without
> introducing a "continue" as I think that will make the control flow
> clearer. Therefore, I propose the attached variant of your idea.
Err, that doesn't work at all. Have a look at this version instead.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
index e765cea..0e60dbc 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
@@ -777,33 +777,37 @@ shm_mq_send_bytes(shm_mq_handle *mqh, Size nbytes, const void *data,
return SHM_MQ_DETACHED;
}
- if (available == 0)
+ if (available == 0 && !mqh->mqh_counterparty_attached)
{
- shm_mq_result res;
-
/*
* The queue is full, so if the receiver isn't yet known to be
* attached, we must wait for that to happen.
*/
- if (!mqh->mqh_counterparty_attached)
+ if (nowait)
{
- if (nowait)
+ if (shm_mq_get_receiver(mq) == NULL)
{
- if (shm_mq_get_receiver(mq) == NULL)
- {
- *bytes_written = sent;
- return SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK;
- }
- }
- else if (!shm_mq_wait_internal(mq, &mq->mq_receiver,
- mqh->mqh_handle))
- {
- mq->mq_detached = true;
*bytes_written = sent;
- return SHM_MQ_DETACHED;
+ return SHM_MQ_WOULD_BLOCK;
}
- mqh->mqh_counterparty_attached = true;
}
+ else if (!shm_mq_wait_internal(mq, &mq->mq_receiver,
+ mqh->mqh_handle))
+ {
+ mq->mq_detached = true;
+ *bytes_written = sent;
+ return SHM_MQ_DETACHED;
+ }
+ mqh->mqh_counterparty_attached = true;
+
+ /*
+ * The receiver may have read some data after attaching, so we
+ * must not wait without rechecking the queue state.
+ */
+ }
+ else if (available == 0)
+ {
+ shm_mq_result res;
/* Let the receiver know that we need them to read some data. */
res = shm_mq_notify_receiver(mq);
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
