Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets

From: Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de>
To: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Date: 2015-06-10 14:07:50
Message-ID: 557844B6.8030500@schokola.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On larger Linux machines, we have been running with spin locks replaced by
generic posix mutexes for years now. I personally haven't look at the code for
ages, but we maintain a patch which pretty much does the same thing still:

Ref: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FEDE0BF.7080203@schokola.de

I understand that there are systems out there which have less efficient posix
mutex implementations than Linux (which uses futexes), but I think it would
still be worth considering to do away with the roll-your-own spinlocks on
systems whose posix mutexes are known to behave.

Nils

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-06-10 14:09:38 Re: "could not adopt C locale" failure at startup on Windows
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-06-10 14:05:21 Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets