On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 05:49:45PM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Agree , It reduces the lock time , The new comment are short and concise,
> It sounds good .
Thanks for the double-check. Applied on HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Karina Liskevich
> + /*
> + * There is no need to hold entry->mutex when reading
stats_since and
> + * minmax_stats_since for (unlike counters) they are always
written
> + * while holding pgss->lock exclusively. We are holding
pgss->lock
> +
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:08:30PM +0300, Karina Litskevich wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback and the shorter wording of the comment.
> I used it in the new version of the patch.
After a second look, sounds good to me. Let's wait a bit and see of
others have comments or thoughts to share.
--
M
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:17 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> The comment could be simpler, say a "The spinlock is not required when
> reading these two as they are always updated when holding pgss->lock
> exclusively.". Or something like that.
Thank you for your feedback and the shorter wording of t
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:37:08PM +0300, Karina Litskevich wrote:
> I suggest eliminating holding the excessive lock. See the attached patch.
> This would also restore the consistency between the code and the comments
> about entry's mutex spinlock usage.
You are right. minmax_stats_since and st
