Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ocie@paracel.com
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Date
Msg-id 9804300351.AA00755@dolomite.paracel.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch  (dg@illustra.com (David Gould))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch
List pgsql-hackers
David Gould wrote:

[snip]
> Here is the Spinlock back off patch I promised. This does semi-random
> backoff using select() to lessen throughput degradation due to spinlock
> contention with large numbers of runnable backends.

Does this actually use some sort of random number generator?  I'm
thinking that this may not be entirely necessary.  With Ethernet, this
is needed to avoid another colission, but with locks, one process is
guaranteed to get a lock.

Ocie

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unlock the vacuum
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] S_LOCK reduced contention through backoff patch