On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:51:21AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> That was my hunch too, but I wanted to be more sure, so I modified the
> benchmark so it doesn't know the address of the next calculation until
> it finishes the last calculation so we can hopefully see the latency
> caused by indirection. It also does an additional calculation on
> constant 20 bytes, like the WAL header. I also tweaked the length each
> iteration so the branch predictor maybe has a harder time predicting
> the constant 20 input. And to make it more challenging, I removed the
> part that inlined all small inputs, so it inlines only constant
> inputs:
Would you mind sharing this test? It sounds like you are running a
workload with a mix of constant/inlined calls and function pointer calls to
simulate typical usage for WAL, but I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding you
correctly.
> These are still a bit noisy, and close, but, it seems there is no
> penalty in using the function pointer as long as the header
> calculation is inlined.
These results look promising.
--
nathan
