| 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: | 2016-04-06 09:35:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20160406093514.5hav6lhp3umqrapt@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-05 12:56:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around
> 550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of
> fluctuations..
>
> *128 client
> **(head+**0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect
> +pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)*
>
> run1 645769
> run2 643161
> run3 *285546*
> run4 *289421*
> run5 630772
> run6 *284363*
I wonder what http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=09adc9a8c09c9640de05c7023b27fb83c761e91c
does to all these numbers. It seems entirely possible that "this" is
mainly changing the alignment of some common datastructures...
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-06 09:43:23 | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2016-04-06 09:33:02 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |