| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinning verses sleeping in s_lock |
| Date: | 2002-01-22 20:39:45 |
| Message-ID: | 200201222039.g0MKdjY06514@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> A final comment --- given that in 7.2 we only use spinlocks to protect
> very short segments of code, I believe it's fairly improbable for more
> than two processes to be contending for a spinlock anyway. So it's
> probably sufficient to distinguish whether we have one or more than
> one CPU, and statically select one of two spinning strategies on that
> basis. Trying to dynamically adapt for more CPUs/contending processes
> will reap only minimal returns.
Added to TODO:
* Add code to detect an SMP machine and handle spinlocks
accordingly
--
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 | 2002-01-22 20:41:49 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-01-22 20:30:20 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |