Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: 2016-03-31 10:54:02
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYNPwc_O_=EZ-c_z-t2Lb1pYCrQpmskt8f8AkO60Xhd8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-03-30 07:13:16 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> > My gut feeling is that we should do both 1) and 2).
>> >
>> > Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
>> > Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works". I.e. replace the
>> > #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.
>> >
>>
>> I set that, but after that it hangs, even Initdb hangs..
>
> Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work. I'll try to write a
> patch for approach 1).

Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now
need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation? That's has a somewhat
uncomfortable sound to it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-31 10:58:39 Re: Relation extension scalability
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-03-31 10:50:59 Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0