Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: bruc(at)acm(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead of spinlocks
Date: 2002-07-27 06:26:07
Message-ID: 963.1027751167@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Robert E. Bruccoleri" <bruc(at)stone(dot)congenomics(dot)com> writes:
> On SGI multiprocessor machines, I suspect that a spinlock
> implementation of LWLockAcquire would give better performance than
> using IPC semaphores. Is there any specific reason that a spinlock
> could not be used in this context?

Are you confusing LWLockAcquire with TAS spinlocks?

If you're saying that we don't have an implementation of TAS for
SGI hardware, then feel free to contribute one. If you are wanting to
replace LWLocks with spinlocks, then you are sadly mistaken, IMHO.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-07-27 06:35:36 Re: Virus Emails
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-27 02:26:44 Virus Emails