| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Date: | 2015-08-04 15:54:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20150804155432.GB32119@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-08-04 21:20:20 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have kept barriers based on comments on top of atomic read, refer
> below code:
> * No barrier semantics.
> */
> STATIC_IF_INLINE uint32
> pg_atomic_read_u32(volatile pg_atomic_uint32 *ptr)
>
> Note - The function header comments on pg_atomic_read_u32 and
> corresponding write call seems to be reversed, but that is something
> separate.
Well, the question is whether you *need* barrier semantics in that
place. If you just have a retry loop around a compare/exchange there's
no point in having one, it'll just cause needless slowdown due to
another bus-lock.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 16:11:02 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-04 15:53:59 | Re: Incorrect comment about abbreviated keys |