Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group