GNU bug report logs - #32234
Cuirass: The SQLite built in busy handler might block the Fibers scheduler

Previous Next

Full log

Message #37 received at 32234 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 32234 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32234: [PATCH 2/2] database: Serialize all database accesses
 in a thread.
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:07:12 +0200

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Excellent, thanks for working on this!  This looks great to me, and I
> think the pros outweigh the cons.  Did you check on a big database how
> well it performs?

Yes, I didn't see any difference.  When I use Berlin's database, it
works well but crashes quickly for another reason (lack of disk space I
think, and /tmp being tmpfs).

> One comment:
>
>> -(define* (handle-build-event db event)
>> +(define* (handle-build-event event)
>>    "Handle EVENT, a build event sexp as produced by 'build-event-output-port',
>> -updating DB accordingly."
>> +updating the database accordingly."
>
> [...]
>
>> +(define %db-channel
>> +  (make-parameter #f))
>> +
>> +(define-syntax-rule (with-db-critical-section db exp ...)
>> +  "Evaluate EXP... in the critical section corresponding to %DB-CHANNEL.
>> +DB is bound to the argument of that critical section: the database
>> +connection."
>> +  (call-with-critical-section (%db-channel)
>> +                              (lambda (db) exp ...)))
>> +
>
> I think I find it nicer to keep the ‘db’ parameter everywhere (except
> that it’s now a channel instead of an actual database) rather than using
> this global variable.
>
> WDYT?

That 'db' parameter made sense before, because there were different
database connections: one per fiber.  But now that there is only one
global channel accessible from everywhere, I can't find any use for a
'db-channel' parameter.

Also, using two differents channels for the same database would be a
bug, it would break the serialization mechanism.

And I don't think using several databases (with one channel per
database) would make sense either.

WDYT?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.