Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdu4_+=vQuahoGCQb5-avHEUKTkzyq0GTD77FLjW0q3XVA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:On 2015-09-15 20:16:10 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> We will be tested.
Did you have a chance to run some benchmarks?Yes, we now have 60 physical cores intel server and we're running benchmarks on it.
We got a consensus with Andres that we should commit the CAS version first and look to other optimizations.
Refactored version of atomic state patch is attached. The changes are following:
1) Macros are used for access refcount and usagecount.
2) likely/unlikely were removed. I think introducing of likely/unlikely should be a separate patch since it touches portability. Also, I didn't see any performance effect of this.
3) LockBufHdr returns the state after taking lock. Without using atomic increments it still can save some loops on skip atomic value reading.
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: