Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
| От | Amit Khandekar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAJ3gD9fip8f71ZS1FcU96Sq+_0jrfBnXCEet1ECdxzXHcAvb_w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 02:55, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:58 AM Krunal Bauskar <krunalbauskar@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me know what do you think about this analysis and any specific direction that we should consider to help move forward. > > BTW, it would be also nice to benchmark my lwlock patch on the > Kunpeng. I'm very optimistic about this patch, but it wouldn't be > fair to completely throw it away. It still might be useful for > LSE-disabled builds. Coincidentally I was also looking at some hotspot locations around LWLockAcquire() and LWLockAttempt() for read-only work-loads on both arm64 and x86, and had narrowed down to the place where pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32() is called. So it's likely we are working on the same hotspot area. When I get a chance, I do plan to look at your patch while I myself am trying to see if we can do some optimizations. Although, this is unrelated to the optimization of this mail thread, so this will need a different mail thread. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar Huawei Technologies
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: