From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Date: | 2002-01-05 05:30:09 |
Message-ID: | 200201050530.g055U9N17817@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks. Looks good to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Taylor wrote:
> The number of CPUs on a system should be fairly straight forward to
> find out. Distributed.net source code has some good examples.
>
> What I'm not sure of is how well this stuff reacts to CPUs being
> software disabled (Solaris has such a feature).
>
> ftp://ftp.distributed.net/pub/dcti/source/pub-20010416.tgz
>
> first function of client/common/cpucheck.cpp
>
> Each OS gets its own implementation, but they've got all the ones
> Postgresql uses covered off.
> --
> Rod Taylor
>
> This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some interesting results from tweaking
> spinlocks
>
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > The difference is small, perhaps 15%.
> >
> > The thing that gets my attention is not that it's so small, it's
> that
> > it is so large. My expectation was that that code would hardly ever
> > be executed at all, and even less seldom (on a multiprocessor) need
> to
> > block via select(). How is it that *increasing* the delay interval
> > (which one might reasonably expect to simply waste cycles) can
> achieve
> > a 15% improvement in total throughput? That shouldn't be happening.
> >
> > > My feeling is that we may want to start configuring whether we are
> on
> > > a multi-cpu machine and handle thing differently.
> >
> > That would be more palatable if there were some portable way of
> > detecting it. But maybe we'll be forced into an "is_smp" GUC
> switch.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >
>
>
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 05:34:57 | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-01-05 05:23:36 | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |