Re: Add bump memory context type and use it for tuplesorts

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Matthias van de Meent
Тема Re: Add bump memory context type and use it for tuplesorts
Дата
Msg-id CAEze2WjACZ4=U6QPxRunLMrR5r5m6g8mRkSxOxqZSMLA5jdFnA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Add bump memory context type and use it for tuplesorts  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Add bump memory context type and use it for tuplesorts  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, 14:36 David Rowley, <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 at 02:30, Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 22:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> writes:
> > > It extends memory context IDs to 5 bits (32 values), of which
> > > - 8 have glibc's malloc pattern of 001/010;
> > > - 1 is unused memory's 00000
> > > - 1 is wipe_mem's 11111
> > > - 4 are used by existing contexts (Aset/Generation/Slab/AlignedRedirect)
> > > - 18 are newly available.
> >
> > This seems like it would solve the problem for a good long time
> > to come; and if we ever need more IDs, we could steal one more bit
> > by requiring the offset to the block header to be a multiple of 8.
> > (Really, we could just about do that today at little or no cost ...
> > machines with MAXALIGN less than 8 are very thin on the ground.)
>
> Hmm, it seems like a decent idea, but I didn't want to deal with the
> repercussions of that this late in the cycle when these 2 bits were
> still relatively easy to get hold of.

Thanks for writing the patch.

I think 5 bits is 1 too many. 4 seems fine. I also think you've
reserved too many slots in your patch as I disagree that we need to
reserve the glibc malloc pattern anywhere but in the 1 and 2 slots of
the mcxt_methods[] array.  I looked again at the 8 bytes prior to a
glibc malloc'd chunk and I see the lowest 4 bits of the headers
consistently set to 0001 for all powers of 2 starting at 8 up to
65536.

Malloc's docs specify the minimum chunk size at 4*sizeof(void*) and itself uses , so using powers of 2 for chunks would indeed fail to detect 1s in the 4th bit. I suspect you'll get different results when you check the allocation patterns of multiples of 8 bytes, starting from 40, especially on 32-bit arm (where MALLOC_ALIGNMENT is 8 bytes, rather than the 16 bytes on i386 and 64-bit architectures, assuming  [0] is accurate)

131072 seems to vary and beyond that, they seem to be set to
0010.

In your updated 0001, you don't seem to fill the RESERVED_GLIBC memctx array entries with BOGUS_MCTX(). 

With that, there's no increase in the number of reserved slots from
what we have reserved today. Still 4.  So having 4 bits instead of 3
bits gives us a total of 12 slots rather than 4 slots.  Having 3x
slots seems enough.  We might need an extra bit for something else
sometime. I think keeping it up our sleeve is a good idea.

Another reason not to make it 5 bits is that I believe that would make
the mcxt_methods[] array 2304 bytes rather than 576 bytes.  4 bits
makes it 1152 bytes, if I'm counting correctly.

I don't think I understand why this would be relevant when only 5 of the contexts are actually in use (thus in caches). Is that size concern about TLB entries then?


I revised the patch to simplify hdrmask logic.  This started with me
having trouble finding the best set of words to document that the
offset is "half the bytes between the chunk and block".  So, instead
of doing that, I've just made it so these two fields effectively
overlap. The lowest bit of the block offset is the same bit as the
high bit of what MemoryChunkGetValue returns.

Works for me, I suppose.

I also updated src/backend/utils/mmgr/README to explain this and
adjust the mentions of 3-bits and 61-bits to 4-bits and 60-bits.  I
also explained the overlapping part.

Thanks!

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Fixing backslash dot for COPY FROM...CSV
Следующее
От: Jeff Davis
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock