Re: WIP: Barriers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Konstantin Knizhnik |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: WIP: Barriers |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | [email protected] Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: WIP: Barriers (Thomas Munro <[email protected]>) |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.08.2016 15:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
> This implementation is using a spinlock for the arrival counter, and
> signals (via Robert's condition variables and latches) for waking up
> peer processes when the counter reaches the target. I realise that
> using signals for this sort of thing is a bit unusual outside the
> Postgres universe, but won't a semaphore-based implementation require
> just as many system calls, context switches and scheduling operations?
Yes, you are right.
I never expected that this combination of signal+local socket+select can
provide performance comparable with pthread_cond_t.
I have implemented simple test where two background workers are
emulating request-response round-trip using latches and pthread primitives.
Result (average round-trip time) was 7.49 microseconds for Postgres
latches vs. 4.59 microseconds for pthread_cond_timedwait.
#define N_ROUNDTRIPS 1000000
#define WAIT_LATCH_TIMEOUT 60000
static void PongLatch(Datum arg)
{ int i; timestamp_t start; int result;
BackgroundWorkerUnblockSignals();
Mtm->pong = MyProc->pgprocno; ResetLatch(&MyProc->procLatch); MtmSleep(1000000); Assert(Mtm->ping);
for (i = 0; i <= N_ROUNDTRIPS; i++) { result = WaitLatch(&MyProc->procLatch, WL_LATCH_SET|WL_TIMEOUT,
WAIT_LATCH_TIMEOUT); Assert(result & WL_LATCH_SET); ResetLatch(&MyProc->procLatch);
SetLatch(&ProcGlobal->allProcs[Mtm->ping].procLatch); if (i == 0) { start = MtmGetSystemTime();
} } fprintf(stderr, "Average roundrip time: %f microsconds\n",
(double)(MtmGetSystemTime() - start) / N_ROUNDTRIPS);
}
static void PingLatch(Datum arg)
{ int i; timestamp_t start; int result;
BackgroundWorkerUnblockSignals();
Mtm->ping = MyProc->pgprocno; ResetLatch(&MyProc->procLatch); MtmSleep(1000000); Assert(Mtm->pong);
for (i = 0; i <= N_ROUNDTRIPS; i++) {
SetLatch(&ProcGlobal->allProcs[Mtm->pong].procLatch); result = WaitLatch(&MyProc->procLatch,
WL_LATCH_SET|WL_TIMEOUT,
WAIT_LATCH_TIMEOUT); Assert(result & WL_LATCH_SET); ResetLatch(&MyProc->procLatch); if (i == 0) {
start = MtmGetSystemTime(); } } fprintf(stderr, "Average roundrip time: %f microseconds\n",
(double)(MtmGetSystemTime() - start) / N_ROUNDTRIPS);
}
static BackgroundWorker Pinger = { "ping", BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS,// | BGWORKER_BACKEND_DATABASE_CONNECTION,
BgWorkerStart_ConsistentState, BGW_NEVER_RESTART, PingLatch
};
static BackgroundWorker Ponger = { "pong", BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS,// | BGWORKER_BACKEND_DATABASE_CONNECTION,
BgWorkerStart_ConsistentState, BGW_NEVER_RESTART, PongLatch
};
static void PingPong()
{ RegisterBackgroundWorker(&Pinger); RegisterBackgroundWorker(&Ponger);
}
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
pgsql-hackers by date: