| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: spinlocks on HP-UX |
| Date: | 2011-09-06 14:11:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20110906.231101.820372177321459974.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That would be great. What I've been using as a test case is pgbench
> -S -c $NUM_CPU_CORES -j $NUM_CPU_CORES with scale factor 100 and
> shared_buffers=8GB.
>
> I think what you'd want to compare is the performance of unpatched
> master, vs. the performance with this line added to s_lock.h for your
> architecture:
>
> #define TAS_SPIN(lock) (*(lock) ? 1 : TAS(lock))
>
> We've now added that line for ia64 (the line is present in two
> different places in the file, one for GCC and the other for HP's
> compiler). So the question is whether we need it for any other
> architectures.
Ok. Let me talk to IBM guys...
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2011-09-06 14:25:24 | Re: Alpha 1 for 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-09-06 14:06:45 | Re: Alpha 1 for 9.2 |