| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Blake, Geoff" <blakgeof(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add spin_delay() implementation for Arm in s_lock.h |
| Date: | 2022-01-07 02:33:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20220107023355.kmifwykwz65t4wfx@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> I landed on the idea of adding some intentional spinlock
> contention to src/test/modules/test_shm_mq, which is a prefab test
> framework for passing data among multiple worker processes. The
> attached quick-hack patch makes it grab and release a spinlock once
> per passed message.
I wonder if this will show the full set of spinlock contention issues - isn't
this only causing contention for one spinlock between two processes? It's not
too hard to imagine delays being more important the more processes contend for
one cacheline. I only skimmed your changes, so I might also just have
misunderstood what you were doing...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-07 02:39:57 | Re: Add spin_delay() implementation for Arm in s_lock.h |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-01-07 02:22:35 | Re: \dP and \dX use ::regclass without "pg_catalog." |