From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance TODO items |
Date: | 2001-07-31 13:18:57 |
Message-ID: | 200107311318.f6VDIwH07415@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > * Improve spinlock code, perhaps with OS semaphores, sleeper queue, or
> > spining to obtain lock on multi-cpu systems
>
> You may be interested in a discussion which happened over on
> linux-kernel a few months ago.
>
> Quite a lot of people want a lightweight userspace semaphore,
> and for pretty much the same reasons.
>
> Linus proposed a pretty interesting solution which has the
> same minimal overhead as the current spinlocks in the non-
> contention case, but avoids the spin where there's contention:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel%40vger.kernel.org/msg39615.html
Yes, many OS's have user-space spinlocks, for the same performance
reasons (no kernel call).
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-31 13:21:19 | Re: vacuumlo. |
Previous Message | Matthew Kirkwood | 2001-07-31 09:12:14 | Re: Performance TODO items |