| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Date: | 2016-04-04 08:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20160404085830.GA25969@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 6. With Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 +
> 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect performance is
> almost same as with
> Head+pinunpin-cas-8, only sometime performance at 128 client is low
> (~250,000 instead of 650,000)
Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?
Regards,
Andres
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| backoff.patch | text/x-patch | 744 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2016-04-04 08:59:20 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2016-04-04 08:45:01 | Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan. |