Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 685702.1606463430@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
|
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: