Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: spinlock contention

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: spinlock contention
Date: 2011-06-28 22:48:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> On Jun28, 2011, at 23:48 , Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.  :-(
> Huh? Where do you see your CAS patch being slower than unpatched LWLocks
> in these results? Or are you referring to pgbench runs you made, not
> to these artificial benchmarks?

pgbench -S

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Noah MischDate: 2011-06-28 22:53:58
Subject: Re: [v9.2] Fix leaky-view problem, part 1
Previous:From: Florian PflugDate: 2011-06-28 21:55:16
Subject: Re: spinlock contention

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group