Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
Date: 2017-02-06 13:45:01
Message-ID: CAPpHfdvvEpOH5B-Sc7khTecXczka9ur88b4WMmd813f=ik6WVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:

> > UPD: It appears that Postgres Pro have access to big Power machine
> > now.
> > So, I can do testing/benchmarking myself.
>
> We currently also have access to a LPAR on an E850 machine with 4
> sockets POWER8 running a Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Server ppc64el OS. I can do
> some tests next week, if you need to verify your findings.
>

Very good, thank you!

I tried lwlock-power-2.patch on multicore Power machine we have in
PostgresPro.
I realized that using labels in assembly isn't safe. Thus, I removed
labels and use relative jumps instead (lwlock-power-2.patch).
Unfortunately, I didn't manage to make any reasonable benchmarks. This
machine runs AIX, and there are a lot of problems which prevents PostgreSQL
to show high TPS. Installing Linux there is not an option too, because
that machine is used for tries to make Postgres work properly on AIX.
So, benchmarking help is very relevant. I would very appreciate that.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
lwlock-power-3.patch application/octet-stream 6.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-02-06 13:48:56 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-02-06 13:16:45 Re: Possible spelling fixes