Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nils Goroll
Subject Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Date
Msg-id 557844B6.8030500@schokola.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets  (Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>)
Responses Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets  (Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>)
Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On larger Linux machines, we have been running with spin locks replaced by
generic posix mutexes for years now. I personally haven't look at the code for
ages, but we maintain a patch which pretty much does the same thing still:

Ref: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FEDE0BF.7080203@schokola.de

I understand that there are systems out there which have less efficient posix
mutex implementations than Linux (which uses futexes), but I think it would
still be worth considering to do away with the roll-your-own spinlocks on
systems whose posix mutexes are known to behave.

Nils




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: "could not adopt C locale" failure at startup on Windows