Re: Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: [HACKERS] Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4))

2013-08-29 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 28.08.2013 20:21, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangashlinnakan...@vmware.com writes: So, my plan is to apply the attached non-locked-tas-spin-x86_64.patch to master. But I would love to get feedback from people running different x86_64 hardware. Surely this patch should update the existing

Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: [HACKERS] Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4))

2013-08-28 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 21.05.2013 00:20, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 16.05.2013 01:08, Daniel Farina wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote: pgbench -S is such a workload. With 9.3beta1, I'm seeing this profile, when I run pgbench -S -c64 -j64 -T60 -M prepared on

Re: Spinlock implementation on x86_64 (was Re: [HACKERS] Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4))

2013-08-28 Thread Tom Lane
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com writes: So, my plan is to apply the attached non-locked-tas-spin-x86_64.patch to master. But I would love to get feedback from people running different x86_64 hardware. Surely this patch should update the existing comment at line 209? Or at least