Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160328130904.4mhugvkf4f3wg4qb@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-28 11:48:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > > What's sizeof(BufferDesc) after applying these patches? It should better > > be <= 64... > > > > It is 72. Ah yes, miscalculated the required alignment. Hm. So we got to get this smaller. I see three approaches: 1) Reduce the spinlock size on ppc. That actually might just work by replacing "unsigned int" by "unsigned char" 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid embedding the spinlock, and actually might allowto avoid one atomic op in a number of cases. 3) Shrink the size of BufferDesc by removing buf_id; that'd bring it to 64byte. I'm a bit hesitant to go for 3), because it'd likely end up adding a bit of arithmetic to a number of places in bufmgr.c. Robert, what do you think? Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: