Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160406093514.5hav6lhp3umqrapt@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-05 12:56:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my > > experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that > > (requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop? > > > > I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around > 550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of > fluctuations.. > > *128 client > **(head+**0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect > +pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)* > > run1 645769 > run2 643161 > run3 *285546* > run4 *289421* > run5 630772 > run6 *284363* I wonder what http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=09adc9a8c09c9640de05c7023b27fb83c761e91c does to all these numbers. It seems entirely possible that "this" is mainly changing the alignment of some common datastructures... - Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: