| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, 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: | 2016-04-05 14:45:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20160405144503.xlv6sjvuzu5e5ppn@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-05 17:36:49 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Could the reason be that we're increasing concurrency for LWLock state
> atomic variable by placing queue spinlock there?
Don't think so, it's the same cache-line either way.
> But I wonder why this could happen during "pgbench -S", because it doesn't
> seem to have high traffic of exclusive LWLocks.
Yea, that confuses me too. I suspect there's some mis-aligned
datastructures somewhere. It's hard to investigate such things without
access to hardware.
(FWIW, I'm working on getting pinunpin committed)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-05 14:47:45 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-05 14:40:14 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |