From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
Cc: | neilc(at)samurai(dot)com, markw(at)osdl(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: futex results with dbt-3 |
Date: | 2004-10-20 17:15:35 |
Message-ID: | 7178.1098292535@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The bigger problem here is that the SMP locking bottlenecks we are
>> currently seeing are *hardware* issues (AFAICT anyway). The only way
>> that futexes can offer a performance win is if they have a smarter way
>> of executing the basic atomic-test-and-set sequence than we do;
>>
> lwlocks operations are not a basic atomic-test-and-set sequence. They
> are spinlock, several nonatomic operations, spin_unlock.
Right, and it is the spinlock that is the problem. See discussions a
few months back: at least on Intel SMP machines, most of the problem
seems to have to do with trading the spinlock's cache line back and
forth between CPUs. It's difficult to see how a futex is going to avoid
that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-10-20 17:20:19 | Re: Insert performance, what should I expect? |
Previous Message | Manfred Spraul | 2004-10-20 17:14:46 | Re: futex results with dbt-3 |