| From: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance TODO items |
| Date: | 2001-07-31 09:12:14 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0107311006280.3615-100000@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> * Improve spinlock code, perhaps with OS semaphores, sleeper queue, or
> spining to obtain lock on multi-cpu systems
You may be interested in a discussion which happened over on
linux-kernel a few months ago.
Quite a lot of people want a lightweight userspace semaphore,
and for pretty much the same reasons.
Linus proposed a pretty interesting solution which has the
same minimal overhead as the current spinlocks in the non-
contention case, but avoids the spin where there's contention:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel%40vger.kernel.org/msg39615.html
Matthew.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-31 13:18:57 | Re: Performance TODO items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-31 05:50:06 | Re: Re: Returned mail: User unknown |