On 04/17/2014 12:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-04-16 19:33:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>>> On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
>>>>> I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
>>>>> of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
>>>>> with shared_buffers=48GB on the server Nate Boley provided, takes about
>>>>> 12 seconds. Nearly all of it spent taking the ShmemLock spinlock.
>>>>> Simply modifying LWLockAssign() to not take the spinlock when
>>>>> !IsUnderPostmaster speeds it up to 2 seconds. While certainly not making
>>>>> LWLockAssign() prettier it seems enough of a speedup to be worthwile
>>>>> nonetheless.
>>>>
>>>> Hm. This patch only works if the postmaster itself never assigns any
>>>> LWLocks except during startup. That's *probably* all right, but it
>>>> seems a bit scary. Is there any cheap way to make the logic actually
>>>> be what your comment claims, namely "Interlocking is not necessary during
>>>> postmaster startup"? I guess we could invent a ShmemInitInProgress global
>>>> flag ...
>>>
>>> So, here's a flag implementing things with that flag. I kept your name,
>>> as it's more in line with ipci.c's naming, but it looks kinda odd
>>> besides proc_exit_inprogress.
>>
>> Uh, where are we on this?
>
> I guess it's waiting for the next CF :(.
Now that we have LWLock tranches in 9.4, it might be cleanest to have
the buffer manager allocate a separate tranche for the buffer locks. We
could also save some memory if we got rid of the LWLock pointers in
BufferDesc altogether, and just used the buffer id as an index into the
LWLock array (we could do that without tranches too, but would have to
assume that the lock ids returned by LWLockAssign() are a contiguous range).
Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a
range of locks in one call. That would be very simple, and I think it
would be less likely to break things than a new global flag. I would be
OK with sneaking that into 9.4 still.
- Heikki