Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch

From: ocie(at)paracel(dot)com
To: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Date: 1998-04-30 03:51:58
Message-ID: 9804300351.AA00755@dolomite.paracel.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Gould wrote:

[snip]
> Here is the Spinlock back off patch I promised. This does semi-random
> backoff using select() to lessen throughput degradation due to spinlock
> contention with large numbers of runnable backends.

Does this actually use some sort of random number generator? I'm
thinking that this may not be entirely necessary. With Ethernet, this
is needed to avoid another colission, but with locks, one process is
guaranteed to get a lock.

Ocie

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-04-30 04:21:15 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-04-30 03:40:28 Re: [HACKERS] Unlock the vacuum