Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-12 19:12:50
Message-ID: 023701c5b7cd$f8be31c0$0f01a8c0@zaphod
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> I probably should have broken down the spindelay patch into multiple
> components. But it's only a small change --- could you try simplifying
> the patched line
>
> if ((--spins % MAX_SPINS_PER_DELAY) == 0)
>
> to
>
> if (--spins == 0)
>
> and see how the patch does that way?

I'll do tomorrow morning (CEST, i.e. in about 11 hours).
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lee, Patricia S. 2005-09-12 21:51:00 Autoconf
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 18:48:27 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches