Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
| От | tender wang |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHewXNnXoTe1qyTnZNLt02-nNnt2-5LwGVwrBMJmON8oU6Gx3A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock ("Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> 于2023年12月14日周四 17:02写道：
> On 14 Dec 2023, at 08:12, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> + int bankno = pageno & ctl->bank_mask;
>
> I am a bit uncomfortable seeing it as a mask, why can't it be simply a number
> of banks (num_banks) and get the bank number through modulus op (pageno %
> num_banks) instead of bitwise & operation (pageno & ctl->bank_mask) which is a
> bit difficult to read compared to modulus op which is quite simple,
> straightforward and much common practice in hashing.
>
> Are there any advantages of using & over % ?
use Compiler Explorer[1] tool, '%' has more Assembly instructions than '&' .
int GetBankno1(int pageno) {
return pageno & 127;
}
int GetBankno2(int pageno) {
return pageno % 127;
}
under clang 13.0 under gcc 13.2
GetBankno1: # @GetBankno1
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
mov dword ptr [rbp - 4], edi
mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - 4]
and eax, 127
pop rbp
ret
GetBankno2: # @GetBankno2
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
mov dword ptr [rbp - 4], edi
mov eax, dword ptr [rbp - 4]
mov ecx, 127
cdq
idiv ecx
mov eax, edx
pop rbp
ret
GetBankno1:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
mov DWORD PTR [rbp-4], edi
mov eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-4]
and eax, 127
pop rbp
ret
GetBankno2:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
mov DWORD PTR [rbp-4], edi
mov eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-4]
movsx rdx, eax
imul rdx, rdx, -2130574327
shr rdx, 32
add edx, eax
mov ecx, edx
sar ecx, 6
cdq
sub ecx, edx
mov edx, ecx
sal edx, 7
sub edx, ecx
sub eax, edx
mov ecx, eax
mov eax, ecx
pop rbp
ret
The instruction AND is ~20 times faster than IDIV [0]. This is relatively hot function, worth sacrificing some readability to save ~ten nanoseconds on each check of a status of a transaction.
Now that AND is more faster, Can we replace the '% SLRU_MAX_BANKLOCKS' operation in SimpleLruGetBankLock() with '& 127' :
SimpleLruGetBankLock()
{
int banklockno = (pageno & ctl->bank_mask) % SLRU_MAX_BANKLOCKS;
use '&'
return &(ctl->shared->bank_locks[banklockno].lock);
}
int banklockno = (pageno & ctl->bank_mask) % SLRU_MAX_BANKLOCKS;
use '&'
return &(ctl->shared->bank_locks[banklockno].lock);
}
Thoughts?
[0] https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: