Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Amonson, Paul D" <paul(dot)d(dot)amonson(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash(dot)shankaran(at)intel(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512
Date: 2024-03-12 01:34:36
Message-ID: 20240312013436.GA1787866@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:59:53PM +0000, Amonson, Paul D wrote:
> I will be splitting the request into 2 patches. I am attaching the first
> patch (refactoring only) and I updated the commitfest entry to match this
> patch. I have a question however:
> Do I need to wait for the refactor patch to be merged before I post the
> AVX portion of this feature in this thread?

Thanks. There's no need to wait to post the AVX portion. I recommend
using "git format-patch" to construct the patch set for the lists.

>> Apologies for harping on this, but I'm still not seeing the need for these
>> SIZEOF_VOID_P changes. While it's unlikely that this makes any practical
>> difference, I see no reason to more strictly check SIZEOF_VOID_P here.
>
> I got rid of the second occurrence as I agree it is not needed but unless
> you see something I don't how to know which function to call between a
> 32-bit and 64-bit architecture? Maybe I am missing something obvious?
> What exactly do you suggest here? I am happy to always call either
> pg_popcount32() or pg_popcount64() with the understanding that it may not
> be optimal, but I do need to know which to use.

I'm recommending that we don't change any of the code in the pg_popcount()
function (which is renamed to pg_popcount_slow() in your v6 patch). If
pointers are 8 or more bytes, we'll try to process the buffer in 64-bit
chunks. Else, we'll try to process it in 32-bit chunks. Any remaining
bytes will be processed one-by-one.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-03-12 01:37:56 Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Previous Message Japin Li 2024-03-12 01:28:32 Re: Improve readability by using designated initializers when possible