Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Alexander Korotkov
Тема Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines
Дата
Msg-id CAPpHfducLoqLEAHAOtit3A4_is_GT663orEdZ3TbMTRUW1+TvA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 07.02.2017, 16:48 +0300 schrieb Alexander Korotkov:
> But win isn't
> as high as I observed earlier.  And I wonder why absolute numbers are
> lower
> than in our earlier experiments.  We used IBM E880 which is actually
> two

Did you run your tests on bare metal or were they also virtualized?
 
I run tests on bare metal.

> nodes with interconnect.  However interconnect is not fast enough to
> make
> one PostgreSQL instance work on both nodes.  Thus, used half of IBM
> E880
> which has 4 sockets and 32 physical cores.  While you use IBM E850
> which is
> really single node with 4 sockets and 48 physical cores.  Thus, it
> seems
> that you have lower absolute numbers on more powerful hardware.  That
> makes
> me uneasy and I think we probably don't get the best from this
> hardware.
> Just in case, do you use SMT=8?

Yes, SMT=8 was used.

The machine has 4 sockets, 8 Core each, 3.7 GHz clock frequency. The
Ubuntu LPAR running on PowerVM isn't using all physical cores,
currently 28 cores are assigned (=224 SMT Threads). The other cores are
dedicated to the PowerVM hypervisor and a (very) small AIX LPAR.

Thank you very much for the explanation.

Thus, I see reasons why in your tests absolute results are lower than in my previous tests.
1.  You use 28 physical cores while I was using 32 physical cores.
2.  You run tests in PowerVM while I was running test on bare metal.  PowerVM could have some overhead.
3.  I guess you run pgbench on the same machine.  While in my tests pgbench was running on another node of IBM E880.

Therefore, having lower absolute numbers in your tests, win of LWLock optimization is also lower.  That is understandable.  But win of LWLock optimization is clearly visible definitely exceeds variation.

I think it would make sense to run more kinds of tests.  Could you try set of tests provided by Tomas Vondra?
If even we wouldn't see win some of the tests, it would be still valuable to see that there is no regression there.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Access inside pg_node_tree from query?
Следующее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?