On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I plan to split the atomics patch into smaller chunks before
> reposting. Imo the "Convert the PGPROC->lwWaitLink list into a dlist
> instead of open coding it." is worth being applied independently from
> the rest of the series, it simplies code and it fixes a bug...

For things that require a format-patch series, I personally find it
easier to work off a feature branch on a remote under the control of
the patch author. The only reason that I don't do so myself is that I
know that that isn't everyone's preference.

I have access to a large server for the purposes of benchmarking this.
On the plus side, this is a box very much capable of exercising these
bottlenecks: a 48 core AMD system, with 256GB of RAM. However, I had
to instruct someone else on how to conduct the benchmark, since I
didn't have SSH access, and the OS and toolchain were antiquated,
particularly for this kind of thing. This is Linux kernel
2.6.18-274.3.1.el5 (RHEL5.7). The GCC version that Postgres was built
with was 4.1.2. This is not what I'd hoped for; obviously I would have
preferred to be able to act on your warning: "Please also note that
due to the current state of the atomics implementation this likely
will only work on a somewhat recent gcc and that the performance might
be slightly worse than in the previous version because the atomic add
is implemented using the CAS fallback". Even still, it might be
marginally useful to get a sense of that cost.

I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly
helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the
benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the
master baseline at higher client counts:


This is exactly what you said would happen, but at least now we have a
sense of that cost.

Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to