В Пт, 11/03/2022 в 15:49 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi пишет:
> At Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:30:30 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > Thanks! I looked into dynahash part.
> >
> > struct HASHHDR
> > {
> > - /*
> > - * The freelist can become a point of contention in high-concurrency hash
> >
> > Why did you move around the freeList?
> >
> >
> > - long nentries; /* number of entries in associated buckets */
> > + long nfree; /* number of free entries in the list */
> > + long nalloced; /* number of entries initially allocated for
> >
> > Why do we need nfree? HASH_ASSING should do the same thing with
> > HASH_REMOVE. Maybe the reason is the code tries to put the detached
> > bucket to different free list, but we can just remember the
> > freelist_idx for the detached bucket as we do for hashp. I think that
> > should largely reduce the footprint of this patch.
> >
> > -static void hdefault(HTAB *hashp);
> > +static void hdefault(HTAB *hashp, bool partitioned);
> >
> > That optimization may work even a bit, but it is not irrelevant to
> > this patch?
(forgot to answer in previous letter).
Yes, third commit is very optional. But adding `nalloced` to
`FreeListData` increases allocation a lot even for usual
non-shared non-partitioned dynahashes. And this allocation is
quite huge right now for no meaningful reason.
> >
> > + case HASH_REUSE:
> > + if (currBucket != NULL)
> > + {
> > + /* check there is no unfinished HASH_REUSE+HASH_ASSIGN pair */
> > + Assert(DynaHashReuse.hashp == NULL);
> > + Assert(DynaHashReuse.element == NULL);
> >
> > I think all cases in the switch(action) other than HASH_ASSIGN needs
> > this assertion and no need for checking both, maybe only for element
> > would be enough.
>
> While I looked buf_table part, I came up with additional comments.
>
> BufTableInsert(BufferTag *tagPtr, uint32 hashcode, int buf_id)
> {
> hash_search_with_hash_value(SharedBufHash,
> HASH_ASSIGN,
> ...
> BufTableDelete(BufferTag *tagPtr, uint32 hashcode, bool reuse)
>
> BufTableDelete considers both reuse and !reuse cases but
> BufTableInsert doesn't and always does HASH_ASSIGN. That looks
> odd. We should use HASH_ENTER here. Thus I think it is more
> reasonable that HASH_ENTRY uses the stashed entry if exists and
> needed, or returns it to freelist if exists but not needed.
>
> What do you think about this?
Well... I don't like it but I don't mind either.
Code in HASH_ENTER and HASH_ASSIGN cases differs much.
On the other hand, probably it is possible to merge it carefuly.
I'll try.
---------
regards
Yura Sokolov