I wrote:
> We could ameliorate this if there were a way to acquire ownership of the
> cache line without necessarily winning the spinlock.
Another thought came to mind: maybe the current data layout for LWLocks
is bad. Right now, the spinlock that protects each LWLock data struct
is itself part of the struct, and since the structs aren't large (circa
20 bytes), the whole thing is usually all in the same cache line. This
had seemed like a good idea at the time, on the theory that once you'd
obtained the spinlock you'd also have pulled in the LWLock contents.
But that's only optimal under an assumption of low contention. If
there's high contention for the spinlock, then another processor
spinning on the lock will be continuously taking away ownership of the
cache line and thus slowing down the guy who's got the lock and is
trying to examine/update the LWLock contents.
Maybe it'd be better to allocate the spinlocks off by themselves.
Then, spinning processors would not affect the processor that's updating
the LWLock; only when it finishes doing that and needs to clear the
spinlock will it have to contend with the spinners for the cache line
containing the spinlock.
This would add an instruction or so to LWLockAcquire and LWLockRelease,
and would be of no benefit on uniprocessors, but it might be worth doing
for multiprocessors. Another patch to test ...
I'm starting to think that we might have to succumb to having a compile
option "optimize for multiprocessor" or "optimize for single processor".
It's pretty hard to see how we'd alter a data structure decision like
this on the fly.
regards, tom lane