This patch did not make a noticeable difference for me on a single or
hyperthreaded machine. I'm still seeing runs of 20 or more deadlocks in
a row very often. :(
DJ
Branko Čibej wrote:
> cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
>
>>=?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I was thinking of this when I looked at the trail.c code the other
>>>
>>>day. I don't know if it really has to be randomized, though; a simple
>>>yield -- sleep(0) -- might be enough, given different timing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is this what you're looking for?
>>
>>* subversion/libsvn_fs/trail.c
>> (svn_fs__retry_txn): Yield control on deadlock.
>>
>>Index: subversion/libsvn_fs/trail.c
>>===================================================================
>>--- subversion/libsvn_fs/trail.c (revision 6063)
>>+++ subversion/libsvn_fs/trail.c (working copy)
>>@@ -150,6 +150,10 @@
>>
>> /* We deadlocked. Abort the transaction, and try again. */
>> SVN_ERR (abort_trail (trail, fs));
>>+
>>+ /* Yield; let's see if some of the traffic congestion clears up
>>+ before we try again. */
>>+ apr_sleep (0);
>> }
>>}
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, something like that. A yield is probably enough on a single-cpu
> machine; I wouldn't venture to guess about multiple-cpu boxes. D.J., can
> you rerun your test with this patch applied? Tell us if it makes a
> difference, etc.? We might end up having a randomized sleep anyway.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 28 00:53:52 2003