From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Date: | 2006-06-15 02:23:01 |
Message-ID: | 200606150223.k5F2N1v26905@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
> >
> > Added to TODO list.
> >
> > > One thing we tried in February was padding out the statically defined
> > > locks with dummy lock definitions in the enum. This has the effect of
> > > ensuring that the most contested locks are very definitely in their own
> > > cache line and not shared with others.
> > > That showed a noticeable improvement in performance, probably because it
> > > costs very little to implement, even if the code would require some
> > > explanatory documentation.
> > >
>
> Has this been done? See the LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE macro in code.
Oh, yes, thanks. I thought it had but I couldn't find anything in the
area of the code he propsed the patch.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-15 02:28:49 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-06-15 02:14:26 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |