Good day, every one.
I'm just posting benchmark numbers for atomics patch.
Hardware: 4 socket 72 core (144HT) x86_64 Centos 7.1
postgresql.conf tuning:
shared_buffers = 32GB
fsync = on
synchronous_commit = on
full_page_writes = off
wal_buffers = 16MB
wal_writer_flush_after = 16MB
commit_delay = 2
max_wal_size = 16GB
Results:
pgbench -i -s 300 + pgbench --skip-some-updates
Clients | master | atomics
========+=========+=======
50 | 53.1k | 53.2k
100 | 101.2k | 103.5k
150 | 119.1k | 121.9k
200 | 128.7k | 132.5k
252 | 120.2k | 130.0k
304 | 100.8k | 115.9k
356 | 78.1k | 90.1k
395 | 70.2k | 79.0k
434 | 61.6k | 70.7k
Also graph with more points attached.
On 2017-05-25 18:12, Sokolov Yura wrote:
Hello, Tom.
I agree that lonely semicolon looks bad.
Applied your suggestion for empty loop body (/* skip */).
Patch in first letter had while(true), but I removed it cause
I think it is uglier:
- `while(true)` was necessary for grouping read with `if`,
- but now there is single statement in a loop body and it is
condition for loop exit, so it is clearly just a loop.
Optimization is valid cause compare_exchange always store old value
in `old` variable in a same atomic manner as atomic read.
Tom Lane wrote 2017-05-25 17:39:
Sokolov Yura <funny.fal...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
@@ -382,12 +358,8 @@ static inline uint64
pg_atomic_fetch_and_u64_impl(volatile pg_atomic_uint64 *ptr, uint64
and_)
{
uint64 old;
- while (true)
- {
- old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr);
- if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_))
- break;
- }
+ old = pg_atomic_read_u64_impl(ptr);
+ while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_));
return old;
}
#endif
FWIW, I do not think that writing the loops like that is good style.
It looks like a typo and will confuse readers. You could perhaps
write the same code with better formatting, eg
while (!pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u64_impl(ptr, &old, old & and_))
/* skip */ ;
but why not leave the formulation with while(true) and a break alone?
(I take no position on whether moving the read of "old" outside the
loop is a valid optimization.)
regards, tom lane
With regards,
--
Sokolov Yura aka funny_falcon
Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.ru
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
