From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould) |
Cc: | rkirkpat(at)nag(dot)cs(dot)colorado(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contention |
Date: | 1998-06-10 16:50:41 |
Message-ID: | 199806101650.MAA27806@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Most of the original tas() __asm__() implementations are GCC specific. This
> includes all the Linux platforms except PPC, all the *BSD platforms, even the
> VAX. GCC is also fairly commonly used even on the commercial OSes.
>
> As far as I can tell, the only C coded platforms that are not GCC specific
> are SCO i386 and SunOS/Solaris on Sun3 and Sparc. The other non-GCC platforms
> have external tas.s function implementations (HP), or have system specific
> calls (AIX, OSF, SGI, Nextstep).
That s_lock.h file is a hornets nest of portability problems. I really
don't want to have multiple functions/macros for different CPU's if I
can help it. I don't even want to mix functions/macros for the same
function name if I can help it. I also do not want to start playing
around with isGNU/isnotGNU in a file that is already complex.
Macros work and we already have tons of them, we don't use inline
anywhere else, and the actual locks are 80% asm code anyway, so it looks
the same whether it is in a macro or an inline function.
I have made them macros before for this file, so I can do it again quite
easily.
As for the benefits, well, when I see lots of calls to a function, and I
try and eliminate the calls if it is reasonable. In many places, the
call handling is actually more instructions than the inlining. I look
at the measured performance change vs. the executable size increase and
make a decision. With something like s_lock, it just seems normal to
make it a macro.
> Finally, the difference between a tas() function implementation and the best
> possible inline implementation appears to be only 0.06 microseconds on a P133.
> This will add 0.0003 seconds to startup. On SCO only. On Sparc this is a leaf
> call and possibly even cheaper. No other platforms are affected.
>
> Remember also that I am adding two features that previously did not exist,
> backoff, and stuck lock detection.
Yes, and good improvements.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Byron Nikolaidis | 1998-06-10 17:19:23 | Timestamp field |
Previous Message | Byron Nikolaidis | 1998-06-10 15:15:49 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: M$-Access'97 and TIMESTAMPs |