Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date
Msg-id 18351.1126829153@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches  (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>)
Responses Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
List pgsql-hackers
Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes:
> What about padding the LWLock to 64 bytes on these architectures. Both P4
> and Opteron have 64 byte cache lines, IIRC. This would ensure that a
> cacheline doesn't hold two LWLocks.

I tried that first, actually, but it was a net loss.  I guess enlarging
the array that much wastes too much cache space.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Beta2 Wrap Up ...