Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date
Msg-id 685702.1606463430@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... and, after retrieving my jaw from the floor, I present the
>> attached.  Apple's chips evidently like this style of spinlock a LOT
>> better.  The difference is so remarkable that I wonder if I made a
>> mistake somewhere.  Can anyone else replicate these results?

> Results look very surprising to me.  I didn't expect there would be
> any very busy spin-lock when the number of clients is as low as 4.

Yeah, that wasn't making sense to me either.  The most likely explanation
seems to be that I messed up the test somehow ... but I don't see where.
So, again, I'm wondering if anyone else can replicate or refute this.
I can't be the only geek around here who sprang for an M1.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Use standard SIGHUP and SIGTERM handlers in autoprewarm module
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: autovac issue with large number of tables