Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-12 02:39:46
Message-ID: 20050912023946.GF6026@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> My proposal therefore is to do #2, #3, and #4, and to modify the TAS
> assembly code at least on x86_64. Together, these changes bring
> my test case on a 4-way Opteron from
>
> N, runtime: 1 36s 2 61s 4 105s 8 198s

em64t, 2 proc + 2 HT, 3.4ghz, 4G, 2.6.12:

N, runtime: 1 31s 2 47s 4 86s 8 159s

> to
>
> N, runtime: 1 35s 2 48s 4 58s 8 105s

N, runtime: 1 32s 2 53s 4 90s 8 169s

CPU utilization is definitely higher when running with the patch though.
Hope this helps, happy to do additional testing if necessary.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 03:16:24 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 02:32:51 Re: -fPIC