From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |
Date: | 2012-01-04 07:24:32 |
Message-ID: | 4F03FEB0.7000304@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.01.2012 07:58, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> As part of the ongoing effort to reduce wake-ups when idle/power
> consumption, the attached patch modifies the background writer to
> hibernate in ten second bursts once the bgwriter laps the clock sweep.
> It's fairly well commented, so a description of how it works here
> would probably be redundant. The most controversial aspect of this
> patch is the fact that it adds a SetLatch() call to MarkBufferDirty(),
> though I went to some lengths to ensure that that call will very
> probably find the latch already set when it actually matters, so it
> only checks a single flag.
I think SetBufferCommitInfoNeedsSave() needs the same treatment as
MarkBufferDirty(). And it would probably be good to only set the latch
if the buffer wasn't dirty already. Setting a latch that's already set
is fast, but surely it's even faster to not even try.
> Thoughts? I can produce benchmarks, if that helps, but I think it's
> fairly unlikely that the patch introduces a measurable performance
> regression.
Yeah, I'd like to see a micro-benchmark of a worst-case scenario. I'm a
bit worried about the impact on systems with a lot of CPUs. If you have
a lot of CPUs writing to the same cache line that contains the latch's
flag, that might get expensive.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-04 08:11:19 | Re: BGWriter latch, power saving |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-04 07:12:43 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |