Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1271588465.8305.13998.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-04-18 at 08:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 18:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > > What I'm not clear on is why you've used a spinlock everywhere when only > > > weak-memory thang CPUs are a problem. Why not have a weak-memory-protect > > > macro that does does nada when the hardware already protects us? (i.e. a > > > spinlock only for the hardware that needs it). > > > > Well, we could certainly consider that, if we had enough places where > > there was a demonstrable benefit from it. I couldn't measure any real > > slowdown from adding a spinlock in that sinval code, so I didn't propose > > doing so at the time --- and I'm pretty dubious that this code is > > sufficiently performance-critical to justify the work, either. > > OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array. v2 patch attached -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: