Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets

From: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Date: 2015-06-10 15:54:14
Message-ID: 55785DA6.4040805@schokola.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> As in 200%+ slower.
>> Have you tried PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP ?
> Yes.

Ok, if this can be validated, we might have a new case now for which my
suggestion would not be helpful. Reviewed, optimized code with short critical
sections and no hotspots by design could indeed be an exception where to keep
slock as they are.

> Hm, ok. Any chance you have profiles from back then?

IIUC I had shared all relevant data on the list. Does this help?
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FE9EB27.9020502@schokola.de

Thanks, NIls

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shulgin, Oleksandr 2015-06-10 15:57:42 Fix logical decoding sendtime update
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2015-06-10 15:51:06 Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets