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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Date
Msg-id X8C+4BiJtxygyQnd@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 02:50:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 do find your results extremely surprising not only for 4, but for
all tests with connection numbers lower than 32.  With a scale factor
of 100 that's suspiciously a lot of difference.

> I can't be the only geek around here who sprang for an M1.

Not planning to buy one here, anything I have read on that tells that
it is worth a performance study.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Paul Förster
Date:
Subject: Re: configure and DocBook XML
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Setof RangeType returns