Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date: 2020-12-04 21:25:05
Message-ID: CAPpHfdszzvY0rBRo5v_bxku0t+w9S9yV9SKHZd9_ceVsGASgSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:58 AM Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Let me know what do you think about this analysis and any specific direction that we should consider to help move forward.

BTW, it would be also nice to benchmark my lwlock patch on the
Kunpeng. I'm very optimistic about this patch, but it wouldn't be
fair to completely throw it away. It still might be useful for
LSE-disabled builds.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-12-04 21:39:05 Removal of operator_precedence_warning
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2020-12-04 21:20:27 Re: POC: Better infrastructure for automated testing of concurrency issues