From: | Mikko Tiihonen <mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Use gcc built-in atomic inc/dec in lock.c |
Date: | 2012-12-14 15:33:05 |
Message-ID: | 50CB46B1.9090700@nitorcreations.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/13/2012 12:19 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 12 December 2012 22:11, Mikko Tiihonen
> <mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com> wrote:
>> noticed a "XXX: It might be worth considering using an atomic fetch-and-add
>> instruction here, on architectures where that is supported." in lock.c
>>
>> Here is my first try at using it.
>
> That's interesting, but I have to wonder if there is any evidence that
> this *is* actually helpful to performance.
One of my open questions listed in the original email was request for help on
creating a test case that exercise the code path enough so that it any
improvements can be measured.
But apart from performance I think there are two other aspects to consider:
1) Code clarity: I think the lock.c code is easier to understand after the patch
2) Future possibilities: having the atomic_inc/dec generally available allows
other performance critical parts of postgres take advantage of them in the
future
-Mikko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2012-12-14 15:35:17 | Re: Doc patch to note which system catalogs have oids |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-12-14 15:27:15 | Assert for frontend programs? |