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 03:37:06
Message-ID: 20050912033706.GH6026@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:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> Er, which (or both) of the two patches did you apply here?
>
> > Applied both, sorry that wasn't clear.
>
> Thanks. If you've got the time, could you try the two patches
> separately and see what you get?

Sure.

CVS Head:

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

With just slock-no-cmpb.patch:

N, runtime: 1 32s 2 39s 4 82s 8 167s

With just spin-delay.patch

N, runtime: 1 32s 2 52s 4 94s 8 164s

With both:

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

Hope that helps,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2005-09-12 03:40:11 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-12 03:20:41 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches