| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: sched_yield() |
| Date: | 1998-03-22 05:44:50 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980322014347.324T-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Secondly, the select() backoff patch I am working on starts out with a zero
> > timeout and backs off incrementally by increasing the timeout value on
> > subsequent iterations. The idea is to break up convoys and avoid big piles of
> > processes pounding on a spinlock. This cannot be done with sched_yield().
>
> Hard to beat the backoff argument. I vote we only use select().
I haven't heard any compelling arguments so far as to why
sched_yield() is better then select(), so I tend to vote the same way...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom | 1998-03-22 06:32:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: sched_yield() |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-03-22 05:30:01 | Re: [HACKERS] psql nested queries with 2000+ records |