From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [PATCH] unified frontend support for pg_malloc et al and palloc/pfree mulation (was xlogreader-v4) |
Date: | 2013-01-09 20:43:19 |
Message-ID: | 1514.1357764199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I then applied the palloc.h and mcxt.c hunks of your patch and rebuilt.
> Now I get an average runtime of 16666 ms, a full 2% faster, which is a
> bit astonishing, particularly because the oprofile results haven't moved
> much:
I studied the assembly code being generated for palloc(), and I believe
I see the reason why it's a bit faster: when there's only a single local
variable that has to survive over the elog call, gcc generates a shorter
function entry/exit sequence. I had thought of proposing that we code
palloc() like this:
void *
palloc(Size size)
{
MemoryContext context = CurrentMemoryContext;
AssertArg(MemoryContextIsValid(context));
if (!AllocSizeIsValid(size))
elog(ERROR, "invalid memory alloc request size %lu",
(unsigned long) size);
context->isReset = false;
return (*context->methods->alloc) (context, size);
}
but at least on this specific hardware and compiler that would evidently
be a net loss compared to direct use of CurrentMemoryContext. I would
not put a lot of faith in that result holding up on other machines
though.
In any case this doesn't explain the whole 2% speedup, but it probably
accounts for palloc() showing as slightly cheaper than
MemoryContextAlloc had been in the oprofile listing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-01-09 20:49:47 | Re: Index build temp files |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-09 20:42:25 | Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master() |