Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2006-06-15T02:23:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.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. +