On 4/14/25 04:09, David Rowley wrote:
> I noticed a while ago that the new fast-path locking code uses integer
> division to figure out the fast-path locking group slot. To me, this
> seems a bit unnecessary as FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend is always a
> power-of-two value, so we can use bitwise-AND instead.
>
> I don't think FAST_PATH_REL_GROUP() is in any particularly hot code
> paths, but still, having the divide in there isn't sitting well with
> me. Can we get rid of it?
>
Yes, we can get rid of the divide - if we assume power-of-two value
(which seems fine, we already do that, IIRC).
> I've attached a patch for that. I also adjusted the method used to
> calculate FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend. Also, the Assert that was
> going on at the end of the loop in InitializeFastPathLocks() looked a
> little odd as it seems to be verifying something that the loop
> condition was checking already. I thought it was better to check that
> we end up with a power-of-two.
>
> Please see the attached patch.
>
Thanks. Those changes seem fine to me to.
Do you intend to push these, or do you want me to do it?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
