Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.

From: Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date: 2020-11-26 05:14:41
Message-ID: CAB10pyYiPQeabqbK7jqOOfJqJqsDq84hFBzCFfUwJtABjsDL2A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

scalability baseline patched
----------- --------- ----------
update tpcb update tpcb
--------------------------------------------------------------
128 107932 78554 108081 78569
256 82877 64682 101543 73774
512 55174 46494 77886 61105
1024 32267 27020 33170 30597

configuration:
https://github.com/mysqlonarm/benchmark-suites/blob/master/pgsql-pbench/conf/pgsql.cnf/postgresql.conf

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 10:36, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> 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? The blue lines
> look like they are missing some measurements in-between, so it is hard
> to tell if this is an actual improvement or just some lack of data.
> --
> Michael
>

--
Regards,
Krunal Bauskar

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-26 05:20:32 Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-11-26 05:06:15 Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.