From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Date: | 2017-02-13 01:57:06 |
Message-ID: | 4a417f52-d1e1-a1ae-49c0-25685d847f15@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/22/16 12:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Somewhat naïve question from someone with much less clue about low level
>> cache behaviour trying to follow along: given that we determine such
>> padding at compile time, how do we ensure that the cacheline size we're
>> targeting is right at runtime?
> There's basically only very few common cacheline sizes. Pretty much only
> 64 byte and 128 bytes are common these days. By usually padding to the
> larger of those two, we waste a bit of memory, but not actually cache
> space on platforms with smaller lines, because the padding is never
> accessed.
Though, with an N-way associative cache 2x more padding than necessary
cuts the amount you can fit into the cache by half. That could be
meaningful in some cases.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-13 02:09:34 | Re: removing tsearch2 |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-13 01:29:52 | Re: Checksums by default? |