"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> It looks like padding out LWLock struct would ensure that each of those
> were in separate cache lines?
I've looked at this before and I think it's a nonstarter; increasing the
size of a spinlock to 128 bytes is just not reasonable. (Remember there
are two per buffer.) Also, there's no evidence it would actually help
anything, because the contention we have been able to measure is on only
one particular lock (BufMgrLock) anyway. But feel free to try it to see
if you can see a difference.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-03 14:32:52|
|Subject: Re: LWLockRelease |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-02-03 14:26:16|
|Subject: Re: LWLock cache line alignment |