| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |
| Date: | 2017-09-06 12:56:20 |
| Message-ID: | 10161.1504702580@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 5 September 2017 at 21:23, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Moreover, it matters which primitive you're testing, on which platform,
>> with which compiler, because we have a couple of layers of atomic ops
>> implementations.
> If there is no gain on 2-socket, at least there is no loss either.
The point I'm trying to make is that if tweaking generic.h improves
performance then it's an indicator of missed cases in the less-generic
atomics code, and the latter is where our attention should be focused.
I think basically all of the improvement Sokolov got was from upgrading
the coverage of generic-gcc.h.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-06 12:58:13 | Re: <> join selectivity estimate question |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-09-06 12:42:05 | Re: <> join selectivity estimate question |