Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
От | Dmitry Dolgov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+q6zcVoGWCU4dNE9zYM5jVWEwNHiTQO_fkCmCWzekN1-gz3OA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistentmemory (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:53 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 06:00:54PM +0900, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi wrote: > > The libpmem's pmem_map_file() supported 2M/1G(the size of huge page) > > alignment, since it could reduce the number of page faults. > > In addition, libpmem's pmem_memcpy_nodrain() is the function > > to copy data using single instruction, multiple data(SIMD) instructions > > and NT store instructions(MOVNT). > > As a result, using these APIs is faster than using old mmap()/memcpy(). > > > > Please see the PGCon2018 presentation[1] for the details. > > > > [1] https://www.pgcon.org/2018/schedule/attachments/507_PGCon2018_Introducing_PMDK_into_PostgreSQL.pdf > > So you say that this represents a 3% gain based on the presentation? > That may be interesting to dig into it. Could you provide fresher > performance numbers? I am moving this patch to the next CF 2018-10 for > now, waiting for input from the author. Unfortunately, the patch has some conflicts now, so probably not only fresher performance numbers are necessary, but also a rebased version.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: