| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm |
| Date: | 2007-11-15 06:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | 24944.1195106728@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Nah, if it's only Niagara, it's not worth bothering.
It's not only that aspect of it --- it's that I am 100% convinced that
Magne has misidentified the source of whatever FPU contention he's
seeing. The floating-point code in s_lock() is executed only just
after having returned from a sleep that is at least one millisecond
and often many times that. If Niagara cannot handle a few kiloflops
then you need to find some other company to work for ;-)
I am interested to find out what the true cause of the reported FPU
contention is, but I'll bet our next lunch that s_lock.c ain't it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-11-15 09:36:21 | Re: LDC - Load Distributed Checkpoints with PG8.3b2 on Solaris |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-11-15 04:51:05 | Re: Spinlock backoff algorithm |