Hi, On 2025-07-10 17:31:45 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 7/9/25 19:23, Andres Freund wrote: > > There's other things around this that could use some attention. It's not > > hard > > to see clock sweep be a bottleneck in concurrent workloads - partially due > > to > > the shared maintenance of the clock hand. A NUMAed clock sweep would address > > that. However, we also maintain StrategyControl->numBufferAllocs, which is a > > significant contention point and would not necessarily be removed by a > > NUMAificiation of the clock sweep. > > > > Wouldn't it make sense to partition the numBufferAllocs too, though? I > don't remember if my hacky experimental patch NUMA-partitioning did that > or I just thought about doing that, but why wouldn't that be enough?
It could be solved together with partitioning, yes - that's what I was trying to reference with the emphasized bit in "would *not necessarily* be removed by a NUMAificiation of the clock sweep". Greetings, Andres Freund
