Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date: 2020-11-27 13:57:25
Message-ID: 51e2f75b-3742-7f28-4438-0425b11cf410@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-11-26 23:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... and, after retrieving my jaw from the floor, I present the
> attached. Apple's chips evidently like this style of spinlock a LOT
> better. The difference is so remarkable that I wonder if I made a
> mistake somewhere. Can anyone else replicate these results?

I tried this on a M1 MacBook Air. I cannot reproduce these results.
The unpatched numbers are about in the neighborhood of what you showed,
but the patched numbers are only about a few percent better, not the
1.5x or 2x change that you showed.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexey Kondratov 2020-11-27 14:24:20 Re: Printing LSN made easy
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-11-27 13:40:57 Re: Add Information during standby recovery conflicts