From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Date: | 2002-01-05 03:53:06 |
Message-ID: | 9516.1010202786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I have been experimenting with altering the SPINS_PER_DELAY number in
src/backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c. My results suggest that the current
setting of 100 may be too small.
The attached graph shows pgbench results on the same 4-way Linux box
I described in my last message. (The numbers are not exactly comparable
to the previous graph, because I recompiled with --enable-cassert off
for this set of runs.) All runs use current CVS plus the second LWLock
patch under discussion.
Evidently, on this hardware and test case the optimal SPINS_PER_DELAY
value is somewhere in the low thousands, not 100. I find this rather
surprising given that spinlocks are never held for more than a few
dozen instructions, but the results seem quite stable.
On the other hand, increasing SPINS_PER_DELAY could hardly fail to be
a loser on a single-CPU machine.
Would it be worth making this value a GUC parameter, so that it could
be tuned conveniently on a per-installation basis?
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
image/gif | 8.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-05 04:34:43 | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-05 02:28:32 | Re: Undocumented feature costs a lot of performance in COPY |