On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One thought I had for fiddling with usage_count is to make it grow
>> additively (x = x + 1) and decay exponentially (x = x >> 1). I'm not
>> sure the idea is any good, but one problem with the current system is
>> that it's pretty trivial for a buffer to accumulate five touches, and
>> after that we lose all memory of what the frequency of access is, so a
>> pages of varying different levels of "hotness" can all have usage
>> count 5. This might allow a little more refinement without letting
>> the time to degrade the usage count get out of control.
>
> This is just off the top of my head, but one possible solution could
> be to quantize the levels of hotness. Specifically, we could
> categorize buffers based on hotness. All buffers start in level 1 and
> usage_count 0. Whichever buffer reaches usage_count of 5, and next
> clock sweep which wants to increment its usage_count(hence taking it
> above 5) sees that, it promotes the buffer to the next level, and
> resets its usage_count to 0. Same logic applies for each level. When
> we decrement usage_count and see that it is zero(for some buffer), if
> it is in a level > 1, we demote the buffer to the next lower level. If
> the buffer is in level 1, it is a potential candidate for replacement.
>
> This will allow us to have a loose idea about the hotness of a page,
> without actually storing the usage_count for a buffer. We can still
> update usage_count without locking, as buffers in high contention
> which miss an update in their usage_count wont be affected by that
> missed update, in accordance with all the discussion upthread.
how is that different from usage_count itself? usage_count *is* a
measure of hotness. the arbitrary cap at 5 is paranoia to prevent the
already considerable damage that occurs in the situation Andres is
talking about (where everyhing is marked 'hot' so you have to sweep a
lot more).
also, any added complexity in terms of manipulating usage_count is a
move away from the lockless maintenance I'm proposing. maybe my idea
is a non-starter on that basis alone, but the mechanic should be kept
as simple as possible. the idea to move it to the bgwriter is to
pre-emptively do the work that backends are now doing: try and keep
ahead of the allocations being done so that buffer requests are
satisfied quickly.
merlin