Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Emil Briggs <emil(at)baymountain(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-10-12 19:07:23
Message-ID: 200510121507.23413.emil@baymountain.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> where the number of padding locks is determined by how many lock
> structures fit within a 128 byte cache line.
>
> This isn't exactly elegant coding, but it provides a useful improvement
> on an 8-way SMP box when run on 8.0 base. OK, lets be brutal: this looks
> pretty darn stupid. But it does follow the CPU optimization handbook
> advice and I did see a noticeable improvement in performance and a
> reduction in context switching.
>
> I'm not in a position to try this again now on 8.1beta, but I'd welcome
> a performance test result from anybody that is. I'll supply a patch
> against 8.1beta for anyone wanting to test this.
>

I don't have an 8 way available right now but I can run tests on a 4 way
Opteron if that would be helpful.

Emil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2005-10-12 19:29:27 Re: slow IN() clause for many cases
Previous Message Volkan YAZICI 2005-10-12 18:57:20 Re: How TODO prevent PQfnumber() from lowercasing?