Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Did we ever come to a conclusion about excessive SMP context switching
> > under load?
> Yeah: it's bad.
> Oh, you wanted a fix? That seems harder :-(. AFAICS we need a redesign
> that causes less load on the BufMgrLock. However, the traditional
> solution to too-much-contention-for-a-lock is to break up the locked
> data structure into finer-grained units, which means *more* lock
> operations in total. Normally you expect that the finer-grained lock
> units will mean less contention. But given that the issue here seems to
> be trading physical ownership of the lock's cache line back and forth,
> I'm afraid that the traditional approach would actually make things
> worse. The SMP issue seems to be not with whether there is
> instantaneous contention for the locked datastructure, but with the cost
> of making it possible for processor B to acquire a lock recently held by
> processor A.
I see. I don't even see a TODO in there. :-(
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?