| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: spinlock contention |
| Date: | 2011-06-28 21:48:53 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikG0mJibfgwTogbqzi=vw2j1RxV+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> user-32: none(1.0),atomicinc(14.4),pg_lwlock_cas(22.1),cmpxchng(41.2),pg_lwlock(588.2),spin(1264.7)
>
> I may not be following all this correctly, but doesn't this suggest a
> huge potential upside for the cas based patch you posted upthread when
> combined with your earlier patches that were bogging down on spinlock
> contentionl?
Well, you'd think so, but in fact that patch makes it slower. Don't
ask me why, 'cuz I dunno. :-(
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-06-28 21:51:03 | Re: marking old branches as no longer maintained |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-28 21:33:06 | Re: spinlock contention |