From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Date: | 2002-01-05 04:34:43 |
Message-ID: | 200201050434.g054Yhe11944@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I have been experimenting with altering the SPINS_PER_DELAY number in
> src/backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c. My results suggest that the current
> setting of 100 may be too small.
>
> The attached graph shows pgbench results on the same 4-way Linux box
> I described in my last message. (The numbers are not exactly comparable
> to the previous graph, because I recompiled with --enable-cassert off
> for this set of runs.) All runs use current CVS plus the second LWLock
> patch under discussion.
>
> Evidently, on this hardware and test case the optimal SPINS_PER_DELAY
> value is somewhere in the low thousands, not 100. I find this rather
> surprising given that spinlocks are never held for more than a few
> dozen instructions, but the results seem quite stable.
>
> On the other hand, increasing SPINS_PER_DELAY could hardly fail to be
> a loser on a single-CPU machine.
>
> Would it be worth making this value a GUC parameter, so that it could
> be tuned conveniently on a per-installation basis?
The difference is small, perhaps 15%. My feeling is that we may want to
start configuring whether we are on a multi-cpu machine and handle thing
differently. Are there other SMP issues that could be affected by a
single boolean setting? Is there a way to detect this on postmaster
startup?
My offhand opinion is that we should keep what we have now and start to
think of a more comprehensive solution for 7.3.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 04:49:06 | Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-05 03:53:06 | Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks |