Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks
Date: 2002-01-05 03:53:06
Message-ID: 9516.1010202786@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
image/gif 8.9 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-05 04:34:43 Re: Some interesting results from tweaking spinlocks
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-01-05 02:28:32 Re: Undocumented feature costs a lot of performance in COPY