Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
| От | Stephen Frost |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20050912033706.GH6026@ns.snowman.net обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Er, which (or both) of the two patches did you apply here?
>
> > Applied both, sorry that wasn't clear.
>
> Thanks. If you've got the time, could you try the two patches
> separately and see what you get?
Sure.
CVS Head:
N, runtime: 1 31s 2 47s 4 86s 8 159s
With just slock-no-cmpb.patch:
N, runtime: 1 32s 2 39s 4 82s 8 167s
With just spin-delay.patch
N, runtime: 1 32s 2 52s 4 94s 8 164s
With both:
N, runtime: 1 32s 2 53s 4 90s 8 169s
Hope that helps,
Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: