On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Boy, I'd be pretty darn hesitant to go there, even with our new
> expectation of C99 compilers. What we found out when we last experimented
> with non-static inlines was that the semantics were not very portable nor
> desirable. I've forgotten the details unfortunately.
My original approach to inlining was to alter the nbtsearch.c
_bt_compare() callers (the majority) to call _bt_compare_inl(). This
function matches our current _bt_compare() function, except it's a
static inline. A "new" function, _bt_compare(), is also added. That's a
shim function that simply calls _bt_compare_inl().
This earlier approach now seems to work better than the approach I took
in v3. In fact, my overnight testing shows that v3 was a minor loss
for performance. I guess we can scrap the non-static inline thing
right away.
> But why do we need
> this, and what exactly are you hoping the compiler will do with it?
Well, the patch's approach to inlining prior to v3 was kind of ugly,
and it would have been nice to not have to do it that way. That's all.
Some further refinement is probably possible.
More generally, my goal is to realize a pretty tangible performance
benefit from avoiding a pipeline stall -- this work was driven by a
complaint from Andres. I haven't really explained the reason why the
inlining matters here, and there are a few things that need to be
weighed. I'll have to do some kind of microarchitectural analysis
before proceeding with commit. This is still unsettled.
--
Peter Geoghegan
