Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Dilip Kumar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFiTN-uoToTt+BpASbFds_HFRbzhP2=SWeYjMHLkT_tu8tWAkQ@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
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: