Hi,
On 2025-07-10 17:31:45 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 7/9/25 19:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's other things around this that could use some attention. It's not hard
> > to see clock sweep be a bottleneck in concurrent workloads - partially due to
> > the shared maintenance of the clock hand. A NUMAed clock sweep would address
> > that. However, we also maintain StrategyControl->numBufferAllocs, which is a
> > significant contention point and would not necessarily be removed by a
> > NUMAificiation of the clock sweep.
> >
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to partition the numBufferAllocs too, though? I
> don't remember if my hacky experimental patch NUMA-partitioning did that
> or I just thought about doing that, but why wouldn't that be enough?
It could be solved together with partitioning, yes - that's what I was trying
to reference with the emphasized bit in "would *not necessarily* be removed by
a NUMAificiation of the clock sweep".
Greetings,
Andres Freund
