Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY2rH7b4cG_6+-MsGnS7L8WRuVABXCEn5j7gu=15AZJtQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-05 20:56:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> This fluctuation started appearing after commit 6150a1b0 which we have >> discussed in another thread [1] and a colleague of mine is working on to >> write a patch to try to revert it on current HEAD and then see the results. > > I don't see what that buys us. That commit is a good win on x86... Maybe. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that that is an overgeneralization. Based on some results Mithun Cy showed me this morning, I think that some of this enormous run-to-run fluctuation that we're seeing is due to NUMA effects. So some runs we get two things that are frequently accessed together on the same NUMA node and other times they get placed on different NUMA nodes and then everything sucks. I don't think we fully understand what's going on here yet - and I think we're committing changes in this area awfully quickly - but I see no reason to believe that x86 is immune to such effects. They may just happen in different scenarios than what we see on POWER. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: