| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: futex results with dbt-3 |
| Date: | 2004-10-23 10:51:39 |
| Message-ID: | 417A37BB.9050305@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>
>>The bigger problem here is that the SMP locking bottlenecks we are
>>currently seeing are *hardware* issues (AFAICT anyway). The only way
>>that futexes can offer a performance win is if they have a smarter way
>>of executing the basic atomic-test-and-set sequence than we do;
>>and if so, we could read their code and adopt that method without having
>>to buy into any large reorganization of our code.
>
>
> Well, initial results from Gavin/Neil's patch seem to indicate that, while
> futexes do not cure the CSStorm bug, they do lessen its effects in terms of
> real performance loss.
I proposed weeks ago to see how the CSStorm is affected by stick each backend
in one processor ( where the process was born ) using the cpu-affinity capability
( kernel 2.6 ), is this proposal completely out of mind ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2004-10-23 11:15:30 | Re: Insert performance, what should I expect? |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-10-23 10:31:32 | Re: Insert performance, what should I expect? |