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 55785DA6.4040805@schokola.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>> As in 200%+ slower.
>> Have you tried PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP ?
> Yes.

Ok, if this can be validated, we might have a new case now for which my
suggestion would not be helpful. Reviewed, optimized code with short critical
sections and no hotspots by design could indeed be an exception where to keep
slock as they are.

> Hm, ok. Any chance you have profiles from back then?

IIUC I had shared all relevant data on the list. Does this help?
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4FE9EB27.9020502@schokola.de

Thanks, NIls



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Next
From: "Shulgin, Oleksandr"
Date:
Subject: Fix logical decoding sendtime update