Re: WIP: "More fair" LWLocks

From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: "More fair" LWLocks
Date: 2018-08-13 15:49:07
Message-ID: CA+q6zcUF1skNXB4Afj+KMh9Sn8-fwkpsr9ha3kuS2L=cKk81OQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 17:36, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I run pgbench (read-write and read-only benchmarks) on Amazon
> c5d.18xlarge virtual machine, which has 72 VCPU (approximately same
> power as 36 physical cores). The results are attached
> (lwlock-fair-ro.png and lwlock-fair-rw.png).

Hi,

Thanks for working on that. I haven't read the patch yet, but I think it worth
mentioning that with testing locks on AWS we also need to take into account
lock holder/waiter preemtion problem and such things as Intel PLE, since I
believe they can have significant impact in this case.
Right now I'm doing some small research on this topic and I hope soon I'll
finish a tool and benchmark setup to test the influence of such factors in
virtualized environment. In the meantime I would be glad to review your
patches.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-08-13 16:00:34 Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Nico Williams 2018-08-13 15:45:29 Re: NetBSD vs libxml2