Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-12 23:22:38
Message-ID: 6509.1126567358@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> ... and see how the patch does that way?

BTW, please do look at "vmstat 1" while running the test case
corresponding to your number of processors. It's hard to tell from the
runtime alone whether the patch is fully accomplishing its goal of
reducing wasted cycles. If you see user CPU percent go to 100 and
context swaps drop to a low value, though, you know it's working.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Qingqing Zhou 2005-09-13 00:16:16 Re: counting disk access from index seek operation -- how to?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 22:49:21 Re: Autoconf