Horton

Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-17T18:50:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. pg_test_timing: Also test RDTSC[P] timing, report time source, TSC frequency

  2. Allow retrieving x86 TSC frequency/flags from CPUID

  3. instrumentation: Standardize ticks to nanosecond conversion method

  4. instrumentation: Use Time-Stamp Counter on x86-64 to lower overhead

  5. Zero initialize uses of instr_time about to trigger compiler warnings

  6. instr_time: Represent time as an int64 on all platforms

  7. Add 250c8ee07ed to git-blame-ignore-revs

Hi,

On 2023-01-17 12:26:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Here's an updated version of the move to representing instr_time as
> > nanoseconds. It's now split into a few patches:
> 
> I took a quick look through this.

Thanks!


> > 0001) Add INSTR_TIME_SET_ZERO() calls where otherwise 0002 causes gcc to
> >       warn
> >       Alternatively we can decide to deprecate INSTR_TIME_SET_ZERO() and
> >       just allow to assign 0.
> 
> I think it's probably wise to keep the macro.  If we ever rethink this
> again, we'll be glad we kept it.  Similarly, IS_ZERO is a good idea
> even if it would work with just compare-to-zero.

Perhaps an INSTR_TIME_ZERO() that could be assigned in variable definitions
could give us the best of both worlds?


> I'm almost tempted to suggest you define instr_time as a struct with a
> uint64 field, just to help keep us honest about that.

I can see that making sense. Unless somebody pipes up with opposition to that
plan soon, I'll see how it goes.


> > 0003) Add INSTR_TIME_SET_SECOND()
> >       This is used in 0004. Just allows setting an instr_time to a time in
> >       seconds, allowing for a cheaper loop exit condition in 0004.
> 
> Code and comments are inconsistent about whether it's SET_SECOND or
> SET_SECONDS.  I think I prefer the latter, but don't care that much.

That's probably because I couldn't decide... So I'll go with your preference.


> > 0004) report nanoseconds in pg_test_timing
> 
> Didn't examine 0004 in any detail, but the others look good to go
> other than these nits.

Thanks for looking!

Greetings,

Andres Freund