On 2013-11-19 17:25:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:21:06PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2013-11-19 17:16:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:39:19PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > Do you mean inline? Or atomics? If the former no, if the latter > > yes. I've started on it because of > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20130926225545.GB26663%40awork2.anarazel.de > > Yes, I was wondering about atomics. I think we know the performance > characteristics of inlining.
In that case it really depends on what we do with the atomics, providing the abstraction itself shouldn't change performance at all, but the possible scalability wins of using them in some critical paths are pretty huge. >From a prototype I have, ontop of the number in the above post, removing the spinlock from PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer() (only the !BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER path) gives another factor of two on the used machine, although that required limiting MAX_BACKENDS to 0xfffff instead of the current 0x7fffff. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
