Re: ReadRecentBuffer() doesn't scale well

From: Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Subject: Re: ReadRecentBuffer() doesn't scale well
Date: 2023-06-27 16:04:31
Message-ID: CANwKhkM5QyO-G6Tvb46M1SaPc7VkoScDfSRrL-71md9Oo1-v-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 18:40, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2023-06-27 14:49:48 +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> > If you want to experiment, here is a rebased version of something I
> > hacked up a couple of years back on the way to Fosdem Pgday. I didn't
> > pursue it further because I didn't have a use case where it showed a
> > significant difference.
>
> Thanks for posting!
>
> Based on past experiments, anything that requires an atomic op during spinlock
> release on x86 will be painful :/. I'm not sure there's a realistic way to
> avoid that with futexes though :(.

Do you happen to know if a plain xchg instruction counts as an atomic
for this? I haven't done atomics stuff in a while, so I might be
missing something, but at first glance I think using a plain xchg
would be enough for the releasing side.

--
Ants

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacob Champion 2023-06-27 16:47:09 Re: [PATCH] Honor PG_TEST_NOCLEAN for tempdirs
Previous Message jian he 2023-06-27 16:01:02 Re: Incremental View Maintenance, take 2