Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
Date
Msg-id 32578.1504725133@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Fix performance of generic atomics
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-09-06 14:31:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, if that's the reasoning, why don't we make all of these
>> use simple reads?  It seems unlikely that a locked read is free.

> We don't really use locked reads? All the _atomic_ wrapper forces is an
> actual read from memory rather than a register.

It looks to me like two of the three implementations promise no such
thing.  Even if they somehow do, it hardly matters given that the cmpxchg
loop would be self-correcting.  Mostly, though, I'm looking at the
fallback pg_atomic_read_u64_impl implementation (with a CAS), which
seems far more expensive than can be justified for this.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions