| From: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Min, Baohong" <baohong(dot)min(at)intel(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Reduce LWLockWaitListLock() cache-line contention with adaptive spin reads |
| Date: | 2026-07-24 13:25:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAGjGUAJQOSpZan27GnAQNXCBL5+zVk=dnzu+7G3DhZ5DGNnOsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
> Summary:
> > - Low client counts (<= core count): no measurable impact. Throughput is
> > unchanged within noise (1.01x-1.06x at 8-64 clients), so lightly
> loaded
> > systems are unaffected.
> > - High client counts (>= 120 clients): significant improvement. The
> patch
> > delivers 1.11x-1.59x at 120-1000 clients.
>
> Thanks for working on this. The general approach looks reasonable and is
> not specific to Intel CPUs. Reducing repeated reads of a contended cache
> line lowers cache-coherency traffic and cache-line bouncing, so
> high-core-count AMD and ARM systems should benefit as well. The adaptive
> interval should also keep the impact small under low contention.
>
> Please consider adding benchmark results from at least one non-Intel
> platform. It would also be helpful to explain the choice of the threshold,
> increment, and maximum interval. The MIN_DELAY_USEC change affects
> spinlock behavior globally, so its relationship to this optimization should
> be justified or evaluated in a separate patch.
>
Thanks
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shlok Kyal | 2026-07-24 13:28:40 | Re: [Bug] pg_upgrade could fail for non-superuser subscriptions using foreign servers |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2026-07-24 13:01:18 | Re: Fix publisher-side sequence permission reporting |