Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4a417f52-d1e1-a1ae-49c0-25685d847f15@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/22/16 12:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Somewhat naïve question from someone with much less clue about low level >> cache behaviour trying to follow along: given that we determine such >> padding at compile time, how do we ensure that the cacheline size we're >> targeting is right at runtime? > There's basically only very few common cacheline sizes. Pretty much only > 64 byte and 128 bytes are common these days. By usually padding to the > larger of those two, we waste a bit of memory, but not actually cache > space on platforms with smaller lines, because the padding is never > accessed. Though, with an N-way associative cache 2x more padding than necessary cuts the amount you can fit into the cache by half. That could be meaningful in some cases. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: