Re: autovectorize page checksum code included elsewhere

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John Naylor
Тема Re: autovectorize page checksum code included elsewhere
Дата
Msg-id CANWCAZYezjS0iM60i8zVnSWFtXu5=c-K7wafB-J9Ug0YkC7XbA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на autovectorize page checksum code included elsewhere  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: autovectorize page checksum code included elsewhere  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:47 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> Separately, I'm wondering whether we should consider using CFLAGS_VECTORIZE
> on the whole tree.  Commit fdea253 seems to be responsible for introducing
> this targeted autovectorization strategy, and AFAICT this was just done to
> minimize the impact elsewhere while optimizing page checksums.  Are there
> fundamental problems with adding CFLAGS_VECTORIZE everywhere?  Or is it
> just waiting on someone to do the analysis/benchmarking?

It's already the default for gcc 12 with -O2 (looking further in the
docs, it uses the "very-cheap" vectorization cost model), so it may be
worth investigating what the effect of that was. I can't quickly find
the equivalent info for clang.

That being the case, if the difference you found was real, it must
have been due to unrolling loops. What changed in the binary?

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-12/changes.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alexander Lakhin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: ResourceOwner refactoring
Следующее
От: Alexander Lakhin
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_basebackup check vs Windows file path limits