Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date: 2020-11-26 05:20:32
Message-ID: 592969.1606368032@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:00:50AM +0530, Krunal Bauskar wrote:
>> (Thanks to Amit Khandekar for rigorously performance testing this patch
>> with different combinations).

> For the simple-update and tpcb-like graphs, do you have any actual
> numbers to share between 128 and 1024 connections?

Also, exactly what hardware/software platform were these curves
obtained on?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message k.jamison@fujitsu.com 2020-11-26 05:23:28 RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Previous Message Krunal Bauskar 2020-11-26 05:14:41 Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.