Re: spinlock contention

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: spinlock contention
Date: 2011-06-28 21:33:06
Message-ID: BANLkTinz8FYRcGUO0RjGoG=AguG6nmj9sA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> user-32: none(1.0),atomicinc(14.4),pg_lwlock_cas(22.1),cmpxchng(41.2),pg_lwlock(588.2),spin(1264.7)

I may not be following all this correctly, but doesn't this suggest a
huge potential upside for the cas based patch you posted upthread when
combined with your earlier patches that were bogging down on spinlock
contentionl?

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-28 21:48:53 Re: spinlock contention
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-06-28 21:33:03 Re: SSI modularity questions