On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 03:30, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:00 AM Ants Aasma wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 10:33, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > what I know, pgbench cannot be used for testing spinlocks problems.
> > >
> > > Maybe you can see this issue when a) use higher num
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 2:00 AM Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 10:33, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > what I know, pgbench cannot be used for testing spinlocks problems.
> >
> > Maybe you can see this issue when a) use higher number clients - hundreds,
> > thousands. Decrease share memory,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:18 AM Amit Khandekar wrote:
> Not relevant to the PAUSE stuff Note that when the parallel
> clients reach from 24 to 32 (which equals the machine CPUs), the TPS
> shoots from 454189 to 1097592 which is more than double speed gain
> with just a 30% increase in paralle
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 10:33, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> what I know, pgbench cannot be used for testing spinlocks problems.
>
> Maybe you can see this issue when a) use higher number clients - hundreds,
> thousands. Decrease share memory, so there will be press on related spin lock.
There really ar
čt 16. 4. 2020 v 9:18 odesílatel Amit Khandekar
napsal:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 20:16, Amit Khandekar
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 04:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > I wrote:
> > > > A more useful test would be to directly experiment with contended
> > > > spinlocks. As I recall, we ha
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 20:16, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 04:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> > > A more useful test would be to directly experiment with contended
> > > spinlocks. As I recall, we had some test cases laying about when
> > > we were fooling with the spin
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 04:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > A more useful test would be to directly experiment with contended
> > spinlocks. As I recall, we had some test cases laying about when
> > we were fooling with the spin delay stuff on Intel --- maybe
> > resurrecting one of those woul
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 00:47, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-04-10 13:09:13 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> > On my Intel Xeon machine with 8 cores, I tried to test PAUSE also
> > using a sample C program (attached spin.c). Here, many child processes
> > (much more than CPUs) wait in a ti
I wrote:
> A more useful test would be to directly experiment with contended
> spinlocks. As I recall, we had some test cases laying about when
> we were fooling with the spin delay stuff on Intel --- maybe
> resurrecting one of those would be useful?
The last really significant performance testi
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-04-10 13:09:13 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>> On my Intel Xeon machine with 8 cores, I tried to test PAUSE also
>> using a sample C program (attached spin.c).
> PAUSE doesn't operate on the level of the CPU scheduler. So the OS won't
> just schedule another proces
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 13:09:13 +0530, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> On my Intel Xeon machine with 8 cores, I tried to test PAUSE also
> using a sample C program (attached spin.c). Here, many child processes
> (much more than CPUs) wait in a tight loop for a shared variable to
> become 0, while the parent pr
11 matches
Mail list logo
