From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |
Date: | 2012-01-04 15:05:29 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Xy5p-MEfthRW6Pwyzn0JyDGnTJMOipnuEDCLfEh+QETA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4 January 2012 07:24, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
> MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the latch if
> the buffer wasn't dirty already. Setting a latch that's already set is fast,
> but surely it's even faster to not even try.
That seems reasonable. Revised patch is attached.
> Yeah, I'd like to see a micro-benchmark of a worst-case scenario. I'm a bit
> worried about the impact on systems with a lot of CPUs. If you have a lot of
> CPUs writing to the same cache line that contains the latch's flag, that
> might get expensive.
Also reasonable, but I don't think that I'll get around to it until
after the final commitfest deadline.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
bgwriter_latch.v2.patch | text/x-patch | 12.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-04 15:13:05 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2012-01-04 14:28:59 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |