Re: mosbench revisited

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mosbench revisited
Date: 2011-08-03 18:41:29
Message-ID: 20110803184128.GC24821@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 02:21:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It would be nice if the Linux guys would fix this problem for us, but
> I'm not sure whether they will. For those who may be curious, the
> problem is in generic_file_llseek() in fs/read-write.c. On a platform
> with 8-byte atomic reads, it seems like it ought to be very possible
> to read inode->i_size without taking a spinlock.

Interesting. There's this thread from 2003 suggesting the use of pread
instead, it was rejected on the argument that lseek is cheap so not a
problem.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-02/msg00197.php

Perhaps we now have a benchmark where the effect can be measured.

There's the issue about whether it screws up the readahead mechanism...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-08-03 18:41:56 Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API
Previous Message Grzegorz Jaskiewicz 2011-08-03 18:28:19 Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings