From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: spinlocks on HP-UX |
Date: | 2011-08-29 15:42:28 |
Message-ID: | 22142.1314632548@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> IIUC, this is basically total nonsense.
>> It could maybe be rewritten for more clarity, but it's far from being
>> nonsense. The responsibility for having an actual hardware memory fence
>> instruction lies with the author of the TAS macro.
> Right... but the comment implies that you probably don't need one, and
> doesn't even mention that you MIGHT need one.
I think maybe we need to split it into two paragraphs, one addressing
the TAS author and the other for the TAS user. I'll have a go at that.
> I think optimizing spinlocks for machines with only a few CPUs is
> probably pointless. Based on what I've seen so far, spinlock
> contention even at 16 CPUs is negligible pretty much no matter what
> you do.
We did find significant differences several years ago, testing on
machines that probably had no more than four cores; that's where the
existing comments in s_lock.h came from. Whether those tests are
still relevant for today's source code is not obvious though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-29 15:47:48 | Re: spinlocks on HP-UX |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-29 15:30:07 | Re: confusing invalid UTF8 byte sequence error |