Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > >>The bigger problem here is that the SMP locking bottlenecks we are >>currently seeing are *hardware* issues (AFAICT anyway). The only way >>that futexes can offer a performance win is if they have a smarter way >>of executing the basic atomic-test-and-set sequence than we do; >>and if so, we could read their code and adopt that method without having >>to buy into any large reorganization of our code. > > > Well, initial results from Gavin/Neil's patch seem to indicate that, while > futexes do not cure the CSStorm bug, they do lessen its effects in terms of > real performance loss.
I proposed weeks ago to see how the CSStorm is affected by stick each backend in one processor ( where the process was born ) using the cpu-affinity capability ( kernel 2.6 ), is this proposal completely out of mind ?
Regards Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
