You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Per crossbeam-rs/crossbeam#835, spinning in the waker is probably a bad idea because the critical section includes allocation. So, the spinlock may be more expensive than a system futex.
In a sysbench oltp_index workload, channel sending occupies 5.8% CPU.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
close#13815
According to crossbeam-rs/crossbeam#835, spinning at the
sending side is probably a bad idea because of large critical section and it's
fixed in the recent version.
This commit updates crossbeam-channel. It will reduce CPU usage a bit and
improve performance.
Signed-off-by: Yilin Chen <sticnarf@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ti Chi Robot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
Development Task
Per crossbeam-rs/crossbeam#835, spinning in the waker is probably a bad idea because the critical section includes allocation. So, the spinlock may be more expensive than a system futex.
In a sysbench oltp_index workload, channel sending occupies 5.8% CPU.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: