Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch

David Gould <dg@illustra.com>

From: dg@illustra.com (David Gould)
To: ocie@paracel.com
Cc: scrappy@hub.org, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1998-04-30T06:32:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Ocie: 
> David Gould wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > Here is the Spinlock back off patch I promised. This does semi-random
> > backoff using select() to lessen throughput degradation due to spinlock
> > contention with large numbers of runnable backends.
> 
> Does this actually use some sort of random number generator?  I'm

No. Have a look at the patch.

> thinking that this may not be entirely necessary.  With Ethernet, this
> is needed to avoid another colission, but with locks, one process is
> guaranteed to get a lock.

In the case where this comes into play, one process already has the lock.
We have already collided. We are trying to limit the number of additional
collisions.

-dg


David Gould            dg@illustra.com           510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468 
Informix Software  (No, really)         300 Lakeside Drive  Oakland, CA 94612
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
 and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
                 -- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>