I wrote:
> At -j 10 -c 10, all else the same, I get 84928 TPS on HEAD and 90357
> with the patch, so about 6% better.
And at -j 1 -c 1, I get 22390 and 24040 TPS, or about 7% better with
the patch. So what I am seeing on OS X isn't contention of any sort,
but just a straight speedup that's independent of the number of clients
(at least up to 10). Probably this represents less setup/teardown cost
for kqueue() waits than poll() waits.
So you could spin this as "FreeBSD's poll() implementation is better than
OS X's", or as "FreeBSD's kqueue() implementation is worse than OS X's",
but either way I do not think we're seeing the same issue that was
originally reported against Linux, where there was no visible problem at
all till you got to a couple dozen clients, cf
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB-SwXbPmfpgL6N4Ro4BbGyqXEqqzx56intHHBCfvpbFUx1DNA%40mail.gmail.com
I'm inclined to think the kqueue patch is worth applying just on the
grounds that it makes things better on OS X and doesn't seem to hurt
on FreeBSD. Whether anyone would ever get to the point of seeing
intra-kernel contention on these platforms is hard to predict, but
we'd be ahead of the curve if so.
It would be good for someone else to reproduce my results though.
For one thing, 5%-ish is not that far above the noise level; maybe
what I'm measuring here is just good luck from relocation of critical
loops into more cache-line-friendly locations.
regards, tom lane
