Re: Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline
Date
Msg-id 5840.1380019179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So, what we do is we guarantee that LWLocks are aligned to 16 or 32byte
> boundaries. That means that on x86-64 (64byte cachelines, 24bytes
> unpadded lwlock) two lwlocks share a cacheline.

Yup.

> In my benchmarks changing the padding to 64byte increases performance in
> workloads with contended lwlocks considerably.

At a huge cost in RAM.  Remember we make two LWLocks per shared buffer.

I think that rather than using a blunt instrument like that, we ought to
see if we can identify pairs of hot LWLocks and make sure they're not
adjacent.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Reasoning behind LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE/increase it to a full cacheline