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

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

From: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
To: ocie(at)paracel(dot)com
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 06:32:31
Message-ID: (view raw or whole 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

No. Have a look at the patch.

> 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.

In the case where this comes into play, one process already has the lock.
We have already collided. We are trying to limit the number of additional


David Gould            dg(at)illustra(dot)com           510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 
Informix Software  (No, really)         300 Lakeside Drive  Oakland, CA 94612
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
 and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
                 -- <>

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Sbragion DenisDate: 1998-04-30 06:38:36
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous:From: Maurice GittensDate: 1998-04-30 06:32:16
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group