Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date: 2016-04-04 08:58:31
Message-ID: 20160404085830.GA25969@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 6. With Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 +
> 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect performance is
> almost same as with
> Head+pinunpin-cas-8, only sometime performance at 128 client is low
> (~250,000 instead of 650,000)

Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?

Regards,

Andres

Attachment Content-Type Size
backoff.patch text/x-patch 744 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Abhijit Menon-Sen 2016-04-04 08:59:20 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Amit Langote 2016-04-04 08:45:01 Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.