List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Xuekun Hu Date:March 25 2009 12:36pm
Subject:RE: why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?
View as plain text  
Hi, Kevin

Got it. Thanks for explanation.

Thx, Xuekun

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin.Lewis@stripped [mailto:Kevin.Lewis@stripped]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:47 PM
To: Hu, Xuekun
Cc: FalconDev
Subject: Re: why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?

Xuekun,

BUMP_INTERLOCKED is defined in SyncObject.h when TRACE_SYNC_OBJECTS is
defined which is currently always defined.  A typical shared lock is
supposed to be very fast, almost a single INTERLOCKED_INCREMENT, since
it happens all the time.  This BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) was
effectively doubling the cost of every shared lock.

If you are NOT intereseted in measuring the best performance and need
this count, you can uncomment this line and recompile.  But while we
still use TRACE_SYNC_OBJECTS on our release builds, we cannot afford to
use this part of it.

Kevin

Hu, Xuekun wrote:
> Hi, Guys
>
> I am just curious why BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) was commented that the shared
> statistics was missing. For performance or mis-functionality reason? Thanks in advance.
>
> Thx, Xuekun
>
Thread
why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?Xuekun Hu25 Mar
  • Re: why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?Jim Starkey25 Mar
Re: why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?Kevin Lewis25 Mar
  • RE: why comment BUMP_INTERLOCKED(sharedCount) in SyncObject::lock?Xuekun Hu25 Mar