Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch

From: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
To: ocie(at)paracel(dot)com
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Date: 1998-04-30 06:32:31
Message-ID: 9804300632.AA24420@hawk.illustra.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ocie:
> David Gould wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > Here is the Spinlock back off patch I promised. This does semi-random
> > backoff using select() to lessen throughput degradation due to spinlock
> > contention with large numbers of runnable backends.
>
> Does this actually use some sort of random number generator? I'm

No. Have a look at the patch.

> thinking that this may not be entirely necessary. With Ethernet, this
> is needed to avoid another colission, but with locks, one process is
> guaranteed to get a lock.

In the case where this comes into play, one process already has the lock.
We have already collided. We are trying to limit the number of additional
collisions.

-dg

David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sbragion Denis 1998-04-30 06:38:36 Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous Message Maurice Gittens 1998-04-30 06:32:16 Re: [HACKERS] removing the exec() from doexec()