Обсуждение: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

Hello hackers!

Continuing the theme: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3368228.mTSz6V0Jsq@dinodell

This time, we fairly rewrote  'refcount' and 'usage_count' to atomic in
PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer (but save lock for buffer flags in Unpin).

In the same time it doesn't affect to correctness of buffer manager
because that variables already have LWLock on top of them (for partition of
hashtable). If someone pinned buffer after the call StrategyGetBuffer we just
try again (in BufferAlloc).  Also in the code there is one more check before
deleting the old buffer, where changes can be rolled back. The other functions
where it is checked 'refcount' and 'usage_count' put exclusive locks.

Also stress test with 256 KB shared memory ended successfully.

Without patch we have 417523 TPS and with patch 965821 TPS for big x86 server.
All details here: https://gist.github.com/stalkerg/773a81b79a27b4d5d63f

Thank you.
--
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Hi,

On 2015-09-11 13:23:24 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> Continuing the theme: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3368228.mTSz6V0Jsq@dinodell

Please don't just start new threads for a new version of the patch.

> This time, we fairly rewrote  'refcount' and 'usage_count' to atomic in
> PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer (but save lock for buffer flags in Unpin).

Hm.

> In the same time it doesn't affect to correctness of buffer manager
> because that variables already have LWLock on top of them (for partition of
> hashtable).

Note that there's a pending patch that removes the buffer mapping locks
entirely.

> If someone pinned buffer after the call StrategyGetBuffer we just try
> again (in BufferAlloc).  Also in the code there is one more check
> before deleting the old buffer, where changes can be rolled back. The
> other functions where it is checked 'refcount' and 'usage_count' put
> exclusive locks.

I don't think this is correct. This way we can leave the for (;;) loop
in BufferAlloc() thinking that the buffer is unused (and can't be further
pinned because of the held spinlock!) while it actually has been pinned
since by PinBuffer(). Additionally oldFlags can get out of sync there.


I don't think the approach of making some of the fields atomics but not
really caring about the rest is going to work. My suggestion is to add a
single 'state' 32bit atomic. This 32bit state is subdivided into:

10bit for flags,
3bit for usage_count,
16bit for refcount

then turn each operation that currently uses one of these fields into
corresponding accesses (just different values for flags, bit-shiftery &
mask for reading usage count, bit mask for reading refcount). The trick
then is to add a *new* flag value BM_LOCKED. This can then act as a sort
of a 'one bit' spinlock.

That should roughly look like (more or less pseudocode):

void
LockBufHdr(BufferDesc *desc)
{   int state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);
   for (;;)   {       /* wait till lock is free */       while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED))       {
pg_spin_delay();          state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);
 
           /* add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */       }
       /* and try to get lock */       if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &state, state | BM_LOCKED))
     break;   }
 
}

static bool
PinBuffer(volatile BufferDesc *buf, BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
{
...   if (ref == NULL)   {       ReservePrivateRefCountEntry();       ref = NewPrivateRefCountEntry(b);
...
       int state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);       int oldstate = state;
       while (true)       {
           /* spin-wait till lock is free */           while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED))           {
pg_spin_delay();              state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);           }
 
           /* increase refcount */           state += 1;
           /* increase usagecount unless already max */           if ((state & USAGE_COUNT_MASK) != BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT)
             state += BM_USAGE_COUNT_ONE;
 
           result = (state & BM_VALID) != 0;
           if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &oldstate, state))               break;
           /* get ready for next loop, oldstate has been updated by cas */           state = oldstate;   }
...
}

other callsites can either just plainly continue to use
LockBufHdr/UnlockBufHdr or converted similarly to PinBuffer().

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Friday 11 September 2015 18:14:21 Andres Freund wrote:
> This way we can leave the for (;;) loop
> in BufferAlloc() thinking that the buffer is unused (and can't be further
> pinned because of the held spinlock!)

We lost lock after PinBuffer_Locked in BufferAlloc. Therefore, in essence, 
nothing has changed. 
-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2015-09-11 19:33:26 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 18:14:21 Andres Freund wrote:
> > This way we can leave the for (;;) loop
> > in BufferAlloc() thinking that the buffer is unused (and can't be further
> > pinned because of the held spinlock!)
> 
> We lost lock after PinBuffer_Locked in BufferAlloc. Therefore, in essence, 
> nothing has changed.

The relevant piece of code is:    /*     * Need to lock the buffer header too in order to change its tag.     */
LockBufHdr(buf);
    /*     * Somebody could have pinned or re-dirtied the buffer while we were     * doing the I/O and making the new
hashtableentry.  If so, we can't     * recycle this buffer; we must undo everything we've done and start     * over
witha new victim buffer.     */    oldFlags = buf->flags;    if (buf->refcount == 1 && !(oldFlags & BM_DIRTY))
break;
    UnlockBufHdr(buf);    BufTableDelete(&newTag, newHash);    if ((oldFlags & BM_TAG_VALID) &&        oldPartitionLock
!=newPartitionLock)        LWLockRelease(oldPartitionLock);    LWLockRelease(newPartitionLock);    UnpinBuffer(buf,
true);}
/* * Okay, it's finally safe to rename the buffer. * * Clearing BM_VALID here is necessary, clearing the dirtybits is
just* paranoia.  We also reset the usage_count since any recency of use of * the old content is no longer relevant.
(Theusage_count starts out at * 1 so that the buffer can survive one clock-sweep pass.) */buf->tag = newTag;buf->flags
&=~(BM_VALID | BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED | BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED | BM_IO_ERROR | BM_PERMANENT);if (relpersistence ==
RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT)   buf->flags |= BM_TAG_VALID | BM_PERMANENT;else    buf->flags |=
BM_TAG_VALID;buf->usage_count= 1;
 
UnlockBufHdr(buf);

so unless I'm missing something, no, we haven't lost the lock.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Friday 11 September 2015 18:37:00 you wrote:
> so unless I'm missing something, no, we haven't lost the lock.
This section is protected by like LWLockAcquire(newPartitionLock, 
LW_EXCLUSIVE); before it (and we can't get this buffer from hash table). 

-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2015-09-11 19:46:02 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 18:37:00 you wrote:
> > so unless I'm missing something, no, we haven't lost the lock.
> This section is protected by like LWLockAcquire(newPartitionLock, 
> LW_EXCLUSIVE); before it (and we can't get this buffer from hash table). 

a) As I said upthread there's a patch to remove these locks entirely
b) It doesn't matter anyway. Not every pin goes through the buffer  mapping table. StrategyGetBuffer(),
SyncOneBuffer(),...
 

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Friday 11 September 2015 18:50:35 you wrote:
> a) As I said upthread there's a patch to remove these locks entirely
It is very interesting. Could you provide a link? And it's not very good, 
since there is a bottleneck PinBuffer / UnpinBuffer instead of LWLocks.
> b) It doesn't matter anyway. Not every pin goes through the buffer
>    mapping table. StrategyGetBuffer(), SyncOneBuffer(), ...
StrategyGetBuffer call only from BufferAlloc .
SyncOneBuffer not problem too because:
PinBuffer_Locked(bufHdr);
LWLockAcquire(bufHdr->content_lock, LW_SHARED);
And please read comment before LockBufHdr(bufHdr) in SyncOneBuffer.

We checked all functions with refcount and usage_count. 

Thanks! ^_^
-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2015-09-14 13:16:46 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2015 18:50:35 you wrote:

> > a) As I said upthread there's a patch to remove these locks entirely

> It is very interesting. Could you provide a link?

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYE4t-Pt%2Bv08kMO5u_XN-HNKBWtfMgcUXEGBrQiVgdV9Q%40mail.gmail.com

> And it's not very good,
> since there is a bottleneck PinBuffer / UnpinBuffer instead of
> LWLocks.

Where the bottleneck is entirely depends on your workload. If you have a
high cache replacement ratio the mapping partition locks are frequently
going to be held exclusively.

> > b) It doesn't matter anyway. Not every pin goes through the buffer
> >    mapping table. StrategyGetBuffer(), SyncOneBuffer(), ...

> StrategyGetBuffer call only from BufferAlloc .

It gets called without buffer mapping locks held. And it can (and
frequently will!) access all the buffers in the buffer pool.

> SyncOneBuffer not problem too because:

> PinBuffer_Locked(bufHdr);

Which you made ineffective because PinBuffer() doesn't take a lock
anymore. Mutual exclusion through locks only works if all participants
take the locks.

> We checked all functions with refcount and usage_count.

Adding lockless behaviour by just taking out locks without analyzing the
whole isn't going to fly. You either need to provide backward
compatibility (a LockBuffer that provides actual exclusion) or you
actually need to go carefully through all relevant code and make it
lock-free.

I pointed out how you can actually make this safely lock-free giving you
the interesting code.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2015-09-14 17:41:42 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I pointed out how you can actually make this safely lock-free giving you
> the interesting code.

And here's an actual implementation of that approach. It's definitely
work-in-progress and could easily be optimized further. Don't have any
big machines to play around with right now tho.

Andres

On Tuesday 15 September 2015 04:06:25 Andres Freund wrote:
> And here's an actual implementation of that approach. It's definitely
> work-in-progress and could easily be optimized further. Don't have any
> big machines to play around with right now tho.
Thanks.  Interesting. 
We had a version like your patch. But this is only half the work. Example:
state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
if ((state & BUF_REFCOUNT_MASK) == 0   && (state & BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK) == 0)
After the first command somebody can change buf->state and local state not 
actual. 
In this embodiment, there is no significant difference between the two 
patches. For honest work will need used the CAS for all IF statement.

Thanks! Hope for understanding. ^_^
-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Saturday 12 September 2015 04:15:43 David Rowley wrote:
> I've run this on a single CPU server and don't see any speedup, so I assume
> I'm not getting enough contention.
> As soon as our 4 socket machine is free I'll try a pgbench run with that.
Excellent! Will wait.

> Just for fun, what's the results if you use -M prepared ?
Unfortunately now we can not check. :(

-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-14 17:41:42 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I pointed out how you can actually make this safely lock-free giving you
>> the interesting code.
>
> And here's an actual implementation of that approach. It's definitely
> work-in-progress and could easily be optimized further. Don't have any
> big machines to play around with right now tho.

Are you confident this is faster across all workloads?   Pin/Unpin are
probably faster but this comes at a cost of extra atomic ops during
the clock sweep loop.  I wonder if this will degrade results under
heavy contention.

Also, I'm curious about your introduction of __builtin_expect()
macros.  Did you measure any gain from them?  I bet there are other
places they could be used -- for example the mvcc hint bit checks on
xmin.

merlin

On 2015-09-15 12:51:24 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> We had a version like your patch. But this is only half the work. Example:
> state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> if ((state & BUF_REFCOUNT_MASK) == 0
>     && (state & BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK) == 0)

> After the first command somebody can change buf->state and local state not 
> actual.

No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock.

> In this embodiment, there is no significant difference between the two 
> patches. For honest work will need used the CAS for all IF statement.

What?

> Thanks! Hope for understanding. ^_^

There's pretty little understanding left at this point. You're posting
things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond
to points raised.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2015-09-15 08:07:57 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Are you confident this is faster across all workloads?

No. This is a proof of concept I just wrote & posted because I didn't
see the patch moving in the right direction. But I do think it can be
made faster in all relevant workloads.

> Pin/Unpin are probably faster but this comes at a cost of extra atomic
> ops during the clock sweep loop.  I wonder if this will degrade
> results under heavy contention.

I think it's actually going to be faster under contention, and the
situation where it's slower is uncontended workloads where you a very
very low cache hit ratio.

> Also, I'm curious about your introduction of __builtin_expect()
> macros.  Did you measure any gain from them?

I introduced them because I was bothered by the generated assembler ;)

But a bit more seriously, I do think there's some benefit in influencing
the code like that. I personally also find they *increase* readability
in cases like this where the likely() branch should be taken just about
all the time.

> I bet there are other places they could be used -- for example the
> mvcc hint bit checks on xmin.

I don't think those are good candidates, there's too many cases where
it's common to have the majority of cases go the other way.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-15 08:07:57 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Also, I'm curious about your introduction of __builtin_expect()
>> macros.  Did you measure any gain from them?
>
> I introduced them because I was bothered by the generated assembler ;)
>
> But a bit more seriously, I do think there's some benefit in influencing
> the code like that. I personally also find they *increase* readability
> in cases like this where the likely() branch should be taken just about
> all the time.

right.  For posterity, I agree with this.

>> I bet there are other places they could be used -- for example the
>> mvcc hint bit checks on xmin.
>
> I don't think those are good candidates, there's too many cases where
> it's common to have the majority of cases go the other way.

Maybe, but, consider that penalty vs win is asymmetric. If the hint
bit isn't set, you're doing a lot of other work anyways such that the
branch penalty falls away to noise while if you win the benefits are
significant against the tight tuple scan loop.

Anyways, as it pertains to *this* patch, +1 for adding that feature.

merlin

On Tuesday 15 September 2015 16:50:44 Andres Freund wrote:
> No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock.
I'm sorry, I did not notice of a LockBufHdr.

In this embodiment, your approach seems to be very similar to s_lock. Cycle in 
PinBuffer behaves like s_lock.
In LockBufHdr:
if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &state, state | BM_LOCKED))

conflict with:
while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED))
from PinBuffer.
Thus your patch does not remove the problem of competition for PinBuffer.
We will try check your patch this week.

>You're posting
>things for review and you seem completely unwilling to actually respond
>to points raised.
I think we're just talking about different things.
-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2015-09-15 19:43:28 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 September 2015 16:50:44 Andres Freund wrote:
> > No, they can't in a a relevant manner. We hold the buffer header lock.
> I'm sorry, I did not notice of a LockBufHdr.
> 
> In this embodiment, your approach seems to be very similar to s_lock. Cycle in 
> PinBuffer behaves like s_lock.

> In LockBufHdr:
> if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&desc->state, &state, state | BM_LOCKED))
> 
> conflict with:
> while (unlikely(state & BM_LOCKED))
> from PinBuffer.
> Thus your patch does not remove the problem of competition for PinBuffer.
> We will try check your patch this week.

That path is only taken if somebody else has already locked the buffer
(e.g. BufferAlloc()). If you have contention in PinBuffer() your
workload will be mostly cache resident and neither PinBuffer() nor
UnpinBuffer() set BM_LOCKED.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

> That path is only taken if somebody else has already locked the buffer
> (e.g. BufferAlloc()). If you have contention in PinBuffer() your
> workload will be mostly cache resident and neither PinBuffer() nor
> UnpinBuffer() set BM_LOCKED.
Thanks. Now I understand everything. It might work.
We will be tested.

>your workload
Simple pgbench -S for NUMA. 


-- 
YUriy Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

On 2015-09-15 20:16:10 +0300, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> We will be tested.

Did you have a chance to run some benchmarks?

Andres

Hi,

Thanks for benchmarking!

On 2015-10-30 16:28:22 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> pinunpin-cas-original-fix.patch is just original patch by Andres Freund
> with fixed bug which causes hang.
> Performance comparison on 72-cores Intel server in attached. On this
> machine we see no regression in version of patch in previous letter.

So pinunpin-cas-original-fix is my version with a bug fixed, and
pinunpin-cas is what exactly? Your earlier version with the xadd +
cmpxchg?

The results look pretty good. Could you give a few more details about
the hardware and workload (i.e. cpu model number + scale)?

So the plan would be to finish cleaning this up into a committable
shape?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 10/29/2015 01:18 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> We got a consensus with Andres that we should commit the CAS version first
> and look to other optimizations.
> Refactored version of atomic state patch is attached. The changes are
> following:
> 1) Macros are used for access refcount and usagecount.
> 2) likely/unlikely were removed. I think introducing of likely/unlikely
> should be a separate patch since it touches portability. Also, I didn't see
> any performance effect of this.
> 3) LockBufHdr returns the state after taking lock. Without using atomic
> increments it still can save some loops on skip atomic value reading.
>

I have been testing this on a smaller system than yours - 2 socket
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2683 v3 w/ 2 x RAID10 SSD disks (data + xlog),
so focused on a smaller number of clients.

While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.

Maybe it is worth to update the README to mention that the flags are
maintained in an atomic uint32 now.

BTW, there are two CommitFest entries for this submission:

  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/370/
  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/408/

Best regards,
  Jesper

Hi,

On November 6, 2015 9:31:37 PM GMT+01:00, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote:
>I have been testing this on a smaller system than yours - 2 socket 
>Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2683 v3 w/ 2 x RAID10 SSD disks (data + xlog), 
>so focused on a smaller number of clients.

Thanks for running tests!

>While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case - 
>there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain 
>Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.

What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?

I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you
rantests in?
 

Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?

Andres

--- 
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Hi,

On 11/06/2015 03:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
>> there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
>> Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.
>
> What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?
>

Scale is 3000, and shared buffer is 64Gb, effective is 160Gb.

Order was master/off -> master/on -> pinunpin/off -> pinunpin/on.

> I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you
rantests in?
 
>

I was puzzled too, hence the post.

> Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?

I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it.

I'll redo.

Best regards, Jesper

Hi,

On 11/06/2015 03:47 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>> Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?
>
> I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it.
>

Each graph has a full initdb + pgbench -i cycle now.

I know, I have a brown paper bag somewhere.

Best regards,
  Jesper

On 2015-11-09 11:54:59 -0500, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/06/2015 03:47 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> >>Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?
> >
> >I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it.
> >
> 
> Each graph has a full initdb + pgbench -i cycle now.

That looks about as we'd expect: the lock-free pinning doesn't matter
and ssynchronous commit is beneficial. I think our bottlenecks in write
workloads are sufficiently elsewhere that it's unlikely that buffer pins
make a lot of difference.

You could try a readonly pgbench workload (i.e. -S), to see whether a
difference is visible there. For a pgbench -S workload it's more likely
that you only see significant contention on larger machines. If you've a
workload that touches more cached buffers, it'd be visible earlier.

> I know, I have a brown paper bag somewhere.

Why? This looks as expected, and the issues from the previous run were
easy to make mistakes?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Hi,

On 11/09/2015 05:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Each graph has a full initdb + pgbench -i cycle now.
>
> That looks about as we'd expect: the lock-free pinning doesn't matter
> and ssynchronous commit is beneficial. I think our bottlenecks in write
> workloads are sufficiently elsewhere that it's unlikely that buffer pins
> make a lot of difference.
>

Using

  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/373/

shows that the CLog queue is max'ed out on the number of client connections.

> You could try a readonly pgbench workload (i.e. -S), to see whether a
> difference is visible there. For a pgbench -S workload it's more likely
> that you only see significant contention on larger machines. If you've a
> workload that touches more cached buffers, it'd be visible earlier.
>

Yeah, basically no difference between the 4 -S runs on this setup.

>> I know, I have a brown paper bag somewhere.
>
> Why? This looks as expected, and the issues from the previous run were
> easy to make mistakes?
>

I should have known to do the full cycle of initdb / pgbench -i in the
first place.

Best regards,
  Jesper

Hi,

On 2015-12-08 12:53:49 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> ​This is why atomic increment *could be* cheaper than loop over CAS and, it
> worth having experiments. ​Another idea is that we can put arbitrary logic
> between lwarx and stwcx. Thus, we can implement PinBuffer using single loop
> of lwarx and stwcx which could be better than loop of CAS.

You can't really put that much between an ll/sc - the hardware is only
able to track a very limited number of cacheline references.

> 3) lwlock-increment.patch – LWLockAttemptLock change state using atomic
> increment operation instead of loop of CAS. This patch does it for
> LWLockAttemptLock like pinunpin-increment.patch does for PinBuffer.
> Actually, this patch is not directly related to buffer manager. However,
> it's nice to test loop of CAS vs atomic increment in different places.

Yea, that's a worthwhile improvement. Actually it's how the first
versions of the lwlock patches worked - unfortunately I couldn't see big
differences on hardware I had available at the time.

There's some more trickyness required than what you have in your patch
(afaics at least). The problem is that when you 'optimistically'
increment by LW_VAL_SHARED and notice that there actually was another
locker, you possibly, until you've 'fixed' the state, are blocking new
exclusive lockers from acquiring the locks.  So you additionally need to
do special handling in these cases, and check the queue more.


Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2015-12-11 15:56:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> We did see this on big Intel machine in practice. pgbench -S gets
> >>>> shared ProcArrayLock very frequently. Since some number of connections is
> >>>> achieved, new connections hangs on getting exclusive ProcArrayLock. I think
> >>>> we could do some workaround for this problem. For instance, when exclusive
> >>>> lock waiter have some timeout it could set some special bit which prevents
> >>>> others to get new shared locks.

> > Ye thats right, but I think in general the solution to this problem
> > should be don't let any Exclusive locker to starve and still allow
> > as many shared lockers as possible.  I think here it is important
> > how we define starving, should it be based on time or something
> > else?  I find timer based solution somewhat less suitable, but may
> > be it is okay, if there is no other better way.
> >
> 
> ​Yes, we probably should find something better.​

> Another way could be to
> >>> check if the Exclusive locker needs to go for repeated wait for a
> >>> couple of times, then we can set such a bit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ​I'm not sure what do you mean by repeated wait. Do you mean exclusive
> >> locker was waked twice up by timeout?
> >>
> >
> > I mean to say once the Exclusive locker is woken up, it again
> > re-tries to acquire the lock as it does today, but if it finds that the
> > number of retries is greater than certain threshold (let us say 10),
> > then we sit the bit.
> >
> 
> ​Yes, there is a cycle with retries in LWLockAcquire function. The case of
> retry is when ​waiter is waked up, but someone other steal the lock before
> him. Lock waiter is waked up by lock releaser only when lock becomes free.
> But in the case of high concurrency for shared lock, it almost never
> becomes free. So, exclusive locker would be never waked up. I'm pretty sure
> this happens on big Intel machine while we do the benchmark. So, relying on
> number of retries wouldn't work in this case.
> I'll do the tests to verify if retries happens in our case.

I seriously doubt that making lwlocks fairer is the right way to go
here. In my testing the "unfairness" is essential to performance - the
number of context switches otherwise increases massively.

I think in this case its better to work on making the lock less
contended, rather than making micro-optimizations around the locking
behaviour.


Andres

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-12-11 15:56:46 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, there is a cycle with retries in LWLockAcquire function. The case
>> > of
>> > retry is when waiter is waked up, but someone other steal the lock
>> > before
>> > him. Lock waiter is waked up by lock releaser only when lock becomes
>> > free.
>> > But in the case of high concurrency for shared lock, it almost never
>> > becomes free. So, exclusive locker would be never waked up. I'm pretty
>> > sure
>> > this happens on big Intel machine while we do the benchmark. So, relying
>> > on
>> > number of retries wouldn't work in this case.
>> > I'll do the tests to verify if retries happens in our case.
>
> makes sense and if retries never happen, then I think changing
> LWLockRelease()
> such that it should wake the waiters if there are waiters on a lock and it
> has not
> waked them for some threshold number of times or something like that might
> work.
>
>>
>> I seriously doubt that making lwlocks fairer is the right way to go
>> here. In my testing the "unfairness" is essential to performance - the
>> number of context switches otherwise increases massively.
>>
>
> Agreed, if the change being discussed hurts in any kind of scenario, then
> we should better not do it, OTOH the case described by Alexander seems
> to be genuine and I have seen similar complaint by customer in the past
> for another database I worked with and the reason for the problem is same.

I have moved this patch to next CF..
-- 
Michael

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> Test2:
> pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
> pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres
>
> Client             Base                      Pached
>
> 1                      20555                    19404
> 32                  375919                  332670
> 64                  509067                  440680
> 128                431346                  415121
> 256                380926                  379176
>
> Test3:
> pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
> pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres
>
> Client             Base                      Pached
>
> 1                      20555                    19404
> 32                  375919                  332670
> 64                  509067                  440680
> 128                431346                  415121
> 256                380926                  379176

It seems like you did a copy-paste of the results with s=100 and
s=300. Both are showing the exact same numbers.
-- 
Michael

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Michael Paquier
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com" target="_blank">michael.paquier@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><spanclass="">> Test3:<br /> > pgbench -i -s 100 postgres<br /> > pgbench
-c$-j$ -Mprepared -S postgres<br /> ><br /> > Client             Base                      Pached<br /> ><br
/>> 1                      20555                    19404<br /> > 32                  375919                 
332670<br/> > 64                  509067                  440680<br /> > 128                431346               
 415121<br /> > 256                380926                  379176<br /><br /></span>It seems like you did a
copy-pasteof the results with s=100 and<br /> s=300. Both are showing the exact same numbers.</blockquote></div><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra">Oops, my mistake, re-pasting the correct results for s=100<br /><br />pgbench -i -s 100
postgres<br/>pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres<br /><br />Client             Base                      Pached<br
/><br/>1                    20548                    20791<br />32                  372633                  355356<br
/>64                 532052                  552148<br />128                412755                  478826<br
/>256                346701                 372057  <br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" /><br />-- <br
/><divclass="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div> 

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Hi, Dilip!
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Test3:
>>> > pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
>>> > pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres
>>> >
>>> > Client             Base                      Pached
>>> >
>>> > 1                      20555                    19404
>>> > 32                  375919                  332670
>>> > 64                  509067                  440680
>>> > 128                431346                  415121
>>> > 256                380926                  379176
>>>
>>> It seems like you did a copy-paste of the results with s=100 and
>>> s=300. Both are showing the exact same numbers.
>>
>>
>> Oops, my mistake, re-pasting the correct results for s=100
>>
>> pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
>> pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres
>>
>> Client             Base                      Pached
>>
>> 1                    20548                    20791
>> 32                  372633                  355356
>> 64                  532052                  552148
>> 128                412755                  478826
>> 256                 346701                 372057
>
>
> Could you please re-run these tests few times?
> Just to be sure it's a reproducible regression with s=300 and not a
> statistical error.

Probably want to run for at least 5 minutes via -T 300

merlin

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Merlin Moncure
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmoncure@gmail.com" target="_blank">mmoncure@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Probably want to
runfor at least 5 minutes via -T 300</blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Last time i run for 5
minutesand taken median of three runs, just missed mentioning "-T 300" in the mail..<br /><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Bylooking at the results with scale factor 1000 and 100 i don't see any reason why it will regress
withscale factor 300.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">So I will run the test again with scale factor 300 and
thistime i am planning to run 2 cases. <br />1. when data fits in shared buffer<br />2. when data doesn't fit in shared
buffer.<br/><br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><brstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">DilipKumar</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><ahref="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br
/></div></div></div></div>

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Dilip Kumar
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dilipbalaut@gmail.com" target="_blank">dilipbalaut@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><divclass="gmail_extra">By looking at the results with scale factor 1000 and 100 i
don'tsee any reason why it will regress with scale factor 300.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">So I will run
thetest again with scale factor 300 and this time i am planning to run 2 cases. <br />1. when data fits in shared
buffer<br/>2. when data doesn't fit in shared buffer.</div></blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">I
haverun the test again with 300 S.F and found no regression, in fact there is improvement with the patch like we saw
with1000 scale factor.<br /><br />Shared Buffer= 8GB        <br />max_connections=150        <br />Scale Factor=300  
            <br />        <br />./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres        <br />        <br />Client  
 Base   Patch<br />1    19744    19382<br />8    125923    126395<br />32    313931    333351<br />64    387339  
 496830<br/>128    306412    350610<br />        <br />Shared Buffer= 512MB        <br />max_connections=150        <br
/>ScaleFactor=300    <br />        <br />./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres        <br />        <br
/>Client   Base    Patch<br />1    17169    16454<br />8    108547    105559<br />32    241619    262818<br />64  
 206868   233606<br />128    137084    217013 <br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" /><br />-- <br
/><divclass="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div> 

Alexander Korotkov wrote:

> Attached patch is rebased and have better comments.
> Also, there is one comment which survive since original version by Andres.
> 
> /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */
> 
> 
> Andres, did you mean we should twice the delay with each unsuccessful try
> to lock?

This is probably a tough patch to review; trying to break it with low
number of shared buffers and high concurrency might be an interesting
exercise.

I know Andres is already pretty busy with the checkpoint flush patch and
I very much doubt he will be able to give this patch a lot of attention
in the short term.  Moving to next CF.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 2016-02-01 13:06:57 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
> a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> >> Client    Base    Patch
> >> 1    19744    19382
> >> 8    125923    126395
> >> 32    313931    333351
> >> 64    387339    496830
> >> 128    306412    350610
> >>
> >> Shared Buffer= 512MB
> >> max_connections=150
> >> Scale Factor=300
> >>
> >> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
> >>
> >> Client    Base    Patch
> >> 1    17169    16454
> >> 8    108547    105559
> >> 32    241619    262818
> >> 64    206868    233606
> >> 128    137084    217013

So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth
addressing.

> Attached patch is rebased and have better comments.
> Also, there is one comment which survive since original version by Andres.
> 
> /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */
> 
> 
> Andres, did you mean we should twice the delay with each unsuccessful try
> to lock?

Spinning on a lock as fast as possible leads to rapid cacheline bouncing
without anybody making progress. See s_lock() in s_lock.c.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2016-02-01 22:35:06 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I know Andres is already pretty busy with the checkpoint flush patch and
> I very much doubt he will be able to give this patch a lot of attention
> in the short term.  Moving to next CF.

Yea, there's no realistic chance I'll be able to take care of this in
the next couple days.

On 2016-02-02 13:12:50 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-02-01 13:06:57 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
> > > a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > > >> Client    Base    Patch
> > > >> 1    19744    19382
> > > >> 8    125923    126395
> > > >> 32    313931    333351
> > > >> 64    387339    496830
> > > >> 128    306412    350610
> > > >>
> > > >> Shared Buffer= 512MB
> > > >> max_connections=150
> > > >> Scale Factor=300
> > > >>
> > > >> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
> > > >>
> > > >> Client    Base    Patch
> > > >> 1    17169    16454
> > > >> 8    108547    105559
> > > >> 32    241619    262818
> > > >> 64    206868    233606
> > > >> 128    137084    217013
> >
> > So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth
> > addressing.
> >
> 
> Interesting. I'll try to reproduce it.

Any progress here?

Regards,

Andres

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Andres Freund
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@anarazel.de" target="_blank">andres@anarazel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><spanclass="">> > > >> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S
postgres<br/> > > > >><br /> > > > >> Client    Base    Patch<br /> > > >
>>1    17169    16454<br /> > > > >> 8    108547    105559<br /> > > > >> 32   
241619   262818<br /> > > > >> 64    206868    233606<br /> > > > >> 128    137084   
217013<br/> > ><br /> > > So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth<br /> > >
addressing.<br/> > ><br /> ><br /> > Interesting. I'll try to reproduce it.<br /><br /></span>Any progress
here?</blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">In Multi socket machine with 8 sockets and 64 cores, I have
seenmore regression compared to my previous run in power8 with 2 socket, currently I tested Read only workload for 5
minsRun, When I get time, I will run for longer time and confirm again.<br /><br /><span class="im">Shared Buffer=
8GB<br/> Scale Factor=300</span><br /><br /><span class="">./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres</span><br
/>client        base        patch<br />1               7057         5230<br />2             10043         9573<br
/>4            20140        18188<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all" /><br />-- <br /><div
class="gmail_signature"><divdir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div> 

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Dilip Kumar
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dilipbalaut@gmail.com" target="_blank">dilipbalaut@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><divclass="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">OK, I will test it,
sometimein this week.</div></blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">I have tested this patch in my
laptop,and there i did not see any regression at 1 client<br /><br />Shared buffer 10GB, 5 mins run with pgbench,
read-onlytest<br /><br />            base    patch<br />run1    22187   24334<br />run2    26288   27440<br />run3   
26306  27411<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">May be in a day or 2 I will
testit in the same machine where I reported the regression, and if regression is there I will check the instruction
usingCall grind.<br clear="all" /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature"><div
dir="ltr"><spanstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div> 

On March 1, 2016 8:41:33 PM PST, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, I will test it, sometime in this week.
>>
>
>I have tested this patch in my laptop, and there i did not see any
>regression at 1 client
>
>Shared buffer 10GB, 5 mins run with pgbench, read-only test
>
>            base    patch
>run1    22187   24334
>run2    26288   27440
>run3    26306   27411
>
>
>May be in a day or 2 I will test it in the same machine where I
>reported
>the regression, and if regression is there I will check the instruction
>using Call grind.

Sounds like a ppc vs. x86 issue. The regression was on the former, right?

Andres
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Andres Freund
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@anarazel.de" target="_blank">andres@anarazel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Soundslike a ppc vs. x86 issue. The regression was on the former,
right?</blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">Well, Regression what I reported last two time, out of
thatone was on X86 and other was on PPC.<br /><br /><br />Copied from older Threads<br
/>--------------------------------------<br/>On PPC<br /><span class="im">>> > > > >> ./pgbench
 -j$-c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres<br />>> > > > >><br />>> > > > >>
Client   Base    Patch<br />>> > > > >> 1    17169    16454<br />>> > > > >>
8   108547    105559<br />>> > > > >> 32    241619    262818<br />>> > > > >>
64   206868    233606<br />>> > > > >> 128    137084    217013</span><br /><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">OnX86<br /><span><span class="im">>> > > > >></span>Shared Buffer= 8GB<br
/></span><span><spanclass="im">>> > > > >></span>Scale Factor=300</span><span class="im"><br /><br
/><span></span></span><spanclass="im"><span><span class="im">>> > > > >></span>./pgbench  -j$ -c$
-T300-M prepared -S postgres</span><br /></span><span class="im">>> > > > >></span>client        
base       patch<br /><span class="im">>> > > > >></span>1               7057         5230<br
/><spanclass="im">>> > > > >></span>2             10043         9573<br /><span
class="im">>>> > > >></span>4             20140        18188<br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on
mylocal machine.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is
doingdifferent, so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results. <br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><brclear="all" /><br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><brstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">DilipKumar</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><ahref="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br
/></div></div></div></div>

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dilip Kumar
<spandir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dilipbalaut@gmail.com" target="_blank">dilipbalaut@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><divclass="gmail_extra">And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on my
localmachine.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is doing
different,so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results. </div></blockquote></div><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra">I tested this on PPC again, This time in various order (sometime patch first and then
basefirst).<br /> I tested with latest patch <b>pinunpin-cas-2.patch</b> on Power8.<br /><br />Shared Buffer = 8GB<br
/><spanclass="im"><span>./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres<br /><br />BASE<br />-----<br />Clients   
run1   run2    run3<br />1           21200    18754    20537<br />2           40331    39520    38746<br />           
<br/><br />Patch<br />-----<br />Clients    run1    run2        run3<br />1           20225    19806    19778<br
/>2          39830    41898    36620<br /><br /></span></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="im"><span>I
think,here we can not see any regression, (If I take median then it may looks low with patch so posting all 3
reading).<br/></span></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="im"><span><br /></span></span>Note: reverted
onlyac1d794 commit in my test.<br /><br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><brstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">DilipKumar</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px" /><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><ahref="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br
/></div></div></div></div>

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on my local machine.
>>
>> I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is doing different,
>> so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results.
>
>
> I tested this on PPC again, This time in various order (sometime patch first
> and then base first).
>  I tested with latest patch pinunpin-cas-2.patch on Power8.
>
> Shared Buffer = 8GB
> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
>
> BASE
> -----
> Clients    run1    run2    run3
> 1           21200    18754    20537
> 2           40331    39520    38746
>
>
> Patch
> -----
> Clients    run1    run2        run3
> 1           20225    19806    19778
> 2           39830    41898    36620
>
> I think, here we can not see any regression, (If I take median then it may
> looks low with patch so posting all 3 reading).

If the median looks low, how is that not a regression?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alexander
Korotkov<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru"
target="_blank">a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru</a>></span>wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Could
anybodyrun benchmarks?  Feature freeze is soon, but it would be *very nice* to fit it into 9.6 release cycle, because
itgreatly improves scalability on large machines.  Without this patch PostgreSQL 9.6 will be significantly behind
competitorslike MySQL 5.7.</blockquote></div><br />I have run the performance and here are the results.. With latest
patchI did not see any regression at lower client count (median of 3 reading).</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra">scale factor 1000 shared buffer 8GB readonly<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span></div><divclass="gmail_extra"><b>Client<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Base<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>patch</b></div><div class="gmail_extra">1<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>12957<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>13068</div><div class="gmail_extra">2<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>24931<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>25816</div><div
class="gmail_extra">4<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>46311<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>48767</div><divclass="gmail_extra">32<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>300921<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>310062</div><div class="gmail_extra">64<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>387623<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>493843</div><div class="gmail_extra">128<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>249635<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>583513</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span></div><div class="gmail_extra">scale factor 300 shared buffer 8GB readonly<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><b>Client<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Base<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>patch</b></div><divclass="gmail_extra">1<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>14537<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>14586    --> one thread number looks little less, generally I get ~18000 (will
recheck).</div><divclass="gmail_extra">2<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>34703<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>33929    --> may be run to run variance (once I get time, will recheck)</div><div
class="gmail_extra">4<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>67744<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>69069</div><divclass="gmail_extra">32<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>312575<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>336012</div><div class="gmail_extra">64<span class="" style="white-space:pre">
</span>213312<spanclass="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>539056</div><div class="gmail_extra">128<span class=""
style="white-space:pre"></span>190139<span class="" style="white-space:pre"> </span>380122</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><b>Summary:</b></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Actuallywith 64 client we have seen ~470,000 TPS with head also, by revering commit
6150a1b0.</div><divclass="gmail_extra">refer this thread: (<a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1+ZeB8PMwwktf+3bRS0Pt4Ux6Rs6Aom0uip8c6shJWmyg@mail.gmail.com">http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1+ZeB8PMwwktf+3bRS0Pt4Ux6Rs6Aom0uip8c6shJWmyg@mail.gmail.com</a>)</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">I haven't tested this patch by reverting commit 6150a1b0, so
notsure can this patch give even better performance ?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Italso points to the case, what Andres has mentioned in this thread.</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160226191158.3vidtk3ktcmhimdu@alap3.anarazel.de">http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160226191158.3vidtk3ktcmhimdu@alap3.anarazel.de</a></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><spanstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br /></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br/></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div
class="gmail_signature"><divdir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div> 

On 2016-03-25 23:02:11 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
> a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> 
> > Could anybody run benchmarks?  Feature freeze is soon, but it would be
> > *very nice* to fit it into 9.6 release cycle, because it greatly improves
> > scalability on large machines.  Without this patch PostgreSQL 9.6 will be
> > significantly behind competitors like MySQL 5.7.
> 
> 
> I have run the performance and here are the results.. With latest patch I
> did not see any regression at lower client count (median of 3 reading).
> 
> scale factor 1000 shared buffer 8GB readonly
> *Client Base patch*
> 1 12957 13068
> 2 24931 25816
> 4 46311 48767
> 32 300921 310062
> 64 387623 493843
> 128 249635 583513
> scale factor 300 shared buffer 8GB readonly
> *Client Base patch*
> 1 14537 14586    --> one thread number looks little less, generally I get
> ~18000 (will recheck).
> 2 34703 33929    --> may be run to run variance (once I get time, will
> recheck)
> 4 67744 69069
> 32 312575 336012
> 64 213312 539056
> 128 190139 380122
> 
> *Summary:*
> 
> Actually with 64 client we have seen ~470,000 TPS with head also, by
> revering commit 6150a1b0.
> refer this thread: (
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1+ZeB8PMwwktf+3bRS0Pt4Ux6Rs6Aom0uip8c6shJWmyg@mail.gmail.com
> )
> 
> I haven't tested this patch by reverting commit 6150a1b0, so not sure can
> this patch give even better performance ?
> 
> It also points to the case, what Andres has mentioned in this thread.
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160226191158.3vidtk3ktcmhimdu@alap3.anarazel.de

On what hardware did you run these tests?

Thanks,

Andres

On 2016-03-27 12:38:25 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
> a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> 
> > Thank you very much for testing!
> > I also got access to 4 x 18 Intel server with 144 threads. I'm going to
> > post results of tests on this server in next Monday.
> >
> 
> I've run pgbench tests on this machine: pgbench -s 1000 -c $clients -j 100
> -M prepared -T 300.
> See results in the table and chart.
> 
> clients master  v3      v5
> 1       11671   12507   12679
> 2       24650   26005   25010
> 4       49631   48863   49811
> 8       96790   96441   99946
> 10      121275  119928  124100
> 20      243066  243365  246432
> 30      359616  342241  357310
> 40      431375  415310  441619
> 50      489991  489896  500590
> 60      538057  636473  554069
> 70      588659  714426  738535
> 80      405008  923039  902632
> 90      295443  1181247 1155918
> 100     258695  1323125 1325019
> 110     238842  1393767 1410274
> 120     226018  1432504 1474982
> 130     215102  1465459 1503241
> 140     206415  1470454 1505380
> 150     197850  1475479 1519908
> 160     190935  1420915 1484868
> 170     185835  1438965 1453128
> 180     182519  1416252 1453098
> 
> My conclusions are following:
> 1) We don't observe any regression in v5 in comparison to master.
> 2) v5 in most of cases slightly outperforms v3.

What commit did you base these tests on? I guess something recent, after
98a64d0bd?

> I'm going to do some code cleanup of v5 in Monday

Ok, I'll try to do a review and possibly commit after that.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2016-03-27 17:45:52 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 
> > On what hardware did you run these tests?
> 
> 
> IBM POWER 8 MACHINE.
> 
> Architecture:          ppc64le
> Byte Order:            Little Endian
> CPU(s):                    192
> Thread(s) per core:    8
> Core(s) per socket:    1
> Socket(s):                24
> NUMA node(s):         4

What's sizeof(BufferDesc) after applying these patches? It should better
be <= 64...

Andres

On 2016-03-28 11:48:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > What's sizeof(BufferDesc) after applying these patches? It should better
> > be <= 64...
> >
>
> It is 72.

Ah yes, miscalculated the required alignment.  Hm. So we got to get this
smaller. I see three approaches:

1) Reduce the spinlock size on ppc. That actually might just work by  replacing "unsigned int" by "unsigned char"
2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid  embedding the spinlock, and actually might
allowto avoid one atomic  op in a number of cases.
 
3) Shrink the size of BufferDesc by removing buf_id; that'd bring it to  64byte.

I'm a bit hesitant to go for 3), because it'd likely end up adding a bit
of arithmetic to a number of places in bufmgr.c.  Robert, what do you
think?

Andres

On 2016-03-28 15:46:43 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> diff --git a/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmnew file mode 100644
> index 6dd7c6e..fe6fb9c
> --- a/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c
> +++ b/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c
> @@ -52,7 +52,6 @@
>  #include "utils/resowner_private.h"
>  #include "utils/timestamp.h"
>  
> -
>  /* Note: these two macros only work on shared buffers, not local ones! */
>  #define BufHdrGetBlock(bufHdr)    ((Block) (BufferBlocks + ((Size) (bufHdr)->buf_id) * BLCKSZ))
>  #define BufferGetLSN(bufHdr)    (PageGetLSN(BufHdrGetBlock(bufHdr)))

spurious

> @@ -848,7 +852,7 @@ ReadBuffer_common(SMgrRelation smgr, cha
>       * it's not been recycled) but come right back here to try smgrextend
>       * again.
>       */
> -    Assert(!(bufHdr->flags & BM_VALID));        /* spinlock not needed */
> +    Assert(!(pg_atomic_read_u32(&bufHdr->state) & BM_VALID)); /* header lock not needed */
>  
>      bufBlock = isLocalBuf ? LocalBufHdrGetBlock(bufHdr) : BufHdrGetBlock(bufHdr);
>  
> @@ -932,8 +936,13 @@ ReadBuffer_common(SMgrRelation smgr, cha
>  
>      if (isLocalBuf)
>      {
> -        /* Only need to adjust flags */
> -        bufHdr->flags |= BM_VALID;
> +        /*
> +         * Only need to adjust flags.  Since it's local buffer, there is no
> +         * concurrency.  We assume read/write pair to be cheaper than atomic OR.
> +         */
> +        uint32 state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&bufHdr->state);
> +        state |= BM_VALID;
> +        pg_atomic_write_u32(&bufHdr->state, state);

I'm not a fan of repeating that comment in multiple places. Hm.


>      }
>      else
>      {
> @@ -987,10 +996,11 @@ BufferAlloc(SMgrRelation smgr, char relp
>      BufferTag    oldTag;            /* previous identity of selected buffer */
>      uint32        oldHash;        /* hash value for oldTag */
>      LWLock       *oldPartitionLock;        /* buffer partition lock for it */
> -    BufFlags    oldFlags;
> +    uint32        oldFlags;
>      int            buf_id;
>      BufferDesc *buf;
>      bool        valid;
> +    uint32        state;
>  
>      /* create a tag so we can lookup the buffer */
>      INIT_BUFFERTAG(newTag, smgr->smgr_rnode.node, forkNum, blockNum);
> @@ -1050,23 +1060,23 @@ BufferAlloc(SMgrRelation smgr, char relp
>      for (;;)
>      {
>          /*
> -         * Ensure, while the spinlock's not yet held, that there's a free
> +         * Ensure, while the header lock isn't yet held, that there's a free
>           * refcount entry.
>           */
>          ReservePrivateRefCountEntry();
>  
>          /*
>           * Select a victim buffer.  The buffer is returned with its header
> -         * spinlock still held!
> +         * lock still held!
>           */
> -        buf = StrategyGetBuffer(strategy);
> +        buf = StrategyGetBuffer(strategy, &state);

The new thing really still is a spinlock, not sure if it's worth
changing the comments that way.


> @@ -1319,7 +1330,7 @@ BufferAlloc(SMgrRelation smgr, char relp
>   * InvalidateBuffer -- mark a shared buffer invalid and return it to the
>   * freelist.
>   *
> - * The buffer header spinlock must be held at entry.  We drop it before
> + * The buffer header lock must be held at entry.  We drop it before
>   * returning.  (This is sane because the caller must have locked the
>   * buffer in order to be sure it should be dropped.)
>   *

Ok, by now I'm pretty sure that I don't want this to be changed
everywhere, just makes reviewing harder.



> @@ -1433,6 +1443,7 @@ void
>  MarkBufferDirty(Buffer buffer)
>  {
>      BufferDesc *bufHdr;
> +    uint32        state;
>  
>      if (!BufferIsValid(buffer))
>          elog(ERROR, "bad buffer ID: %d", buffer);
> @@ -1449,14 +1460,14 @@ MarkBufferDirty(Buffer buffer)
>      /* unfortunately we can't check if the lock is held exclusively */
>      Assert(LWLockHeldByMe(BufferDescriptorGetContentLock(bufHdr)));
>  
> -    LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> +    state = LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
>  
> -    Assert(bufHdr->refcount > 0);
> +    Assert(BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) > 0);
>  
>      /*
>       * If the buffer was not dirty already, do vacuum accounting.
>       */
> -    if (!(bufHdr->flags & BM_DIRTY))
> +    if (!(state & BM_DIRTY))
>      {
>          VacuumPageDirty++;
>          pgBufferUsage.shared_blks_dirtied++;
> @@ -1464,9 +1475,9 @@ MarkBufferDirty(Buffer buffer)
>              VacuumCostBalance += VacuumCostPageDirty;
>      }
>  
> -    bufHdr->flags |= (BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED);
> -
> -    UnlockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> +    state |= BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED;
> +    state &= ~BM_LOCKED;
> +    pg_atomic_write_u32(&bufHdr->state, state);
>  }

Hm, this is a routine I think we should avoid taking the lock in; it's
often called quite frequently. Also doesn't look very hard.

>  static bool
>  PinBuffer(BufferDesc *buf, BufferAccessStrategy strategy)
> @@ -1547,23 +1563,44 @@ PinBuffer(BufferDesc *buf, BufferAccessS
>  
>      if (ref == NULL)
>      {
> +        /* loop of CAS operations */
> +        uint32            state;
> +        uint32            oldstate;
> +        SpinDelayStatus    delayStatus;



>          ReservePrivateRefCountEntry();
>          ref = NewPrivateRefCountEntry(b);
>  
> -        LockBufHdr(buf);
> -        buf->refcount++;
> -        if (strategy == NULL)
> -        {
> -            if (buf->usage_count < BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT)
> -                buf->usage_count++;
> -        }
> -        else
> +        state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> +        oldstate = state;
> +
> +        init_spin_delay(&delayStatus, (Pointer)buf, __FILE__, __LINE__);

Hm. This way we're calling this on every iteration. That doesn't seem
like a good idea. How about making delayStatus a static, and
init_spin_delay a macro which returns a {struct, member, one, two} type
literal?


> +        while (true)
>          {
> -            if (buf->usage_count == 0)
> -                buf->usage_count = 1;
> +            /* spin-wait till lock is free */
> +            while (state & BM_LOCKED)
> +            {
> +                make_spin_delay(&delayStatus);
> +                state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> +                oldstate = state;
> +            }

Maybe we should abstract that to pg_atomic_wait_bit_unset_u32()? It
seems quite likely we need this in other places (e.g. lwlock.c itself).


> +            /* increase refcount */
> +            state += BUF_REFCOUNT_ONE;
> +
> +            /* increase usagecount unless already max */
> +            if (BUF_STATE_GET_USAGECOUNT(state) != BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT)
> +                state += BUF_USAGECOUNT_ONE;
> +
> +            /* try to do CAS, exit on success */

Seems like a somewhat obvious comment?


> @@ -1603,15 +1640,22 @@ PinBuffer_Locked(BufferDesc *buf)
>  {

>      Assert(GetPrivateRefCountEntry(BufferDescriptorGetBuffer(buf), false) == NULL);
>  
> -    buf->refcount++;
> -    UnlockBufHdr(buf);
> +    /*
> +     * Since we assume to held buffer header lock, we can update the buffer
> +     * state in a single write operation.
> +     */
> +    state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> +    state += 1;
> +    state &= ~BM_LOCKED;
> +    pg_atomic_write_u32(&buf->state, state);

Te comment should probably mention that we're releasing the
spinlock. And the += 1 should be a BUF_REFCOUNT_ONE, otherwise it's hard
to understand.

> @@ -1646,30 +1690,66 @@ UnpinBuffer(BufferDesc *buf, bool fixOwn
>      ref->refcount--;
>      if (ref->refcount == 0)
>      {

> +
> +        /* Support LockBufferForCleanup() */
> +        if (state & BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER)
> +        {
> +            state = LockBufHdr(buf);
> +
> +            if (state & BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER && BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) == 1)
> +            {
> +                /* we just released the last pin other than the waiter's */
> +                int            wait_backend_pid = buf->wait_backend_pid;
>  
> +                state &= ~(BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER | BM_LOCKED);
> +                pg_atomic_write_u32(&buf->state, state);
> +                ProcSendSignal(wait_backend_pid);
> +            }
> +            else
> +                UnlockBufHdr(buf);
> +        }

I think it's quite confusing to use UnlockBufHdr and direct bit
expressions in one branch.

Thinking about it I also don't think the pg_atomic_write_u32 variant is
correct without adding a write barrier; the other side might not see the
values yet.

I think we can just redefine UnlockBufHdr() to be a
pg_atomic_write_u32() and pg_write_memory_barrier()?



>       * BM_PERMANENT can't be changed while we hold a pin on the buffer, so we
> -     * need not bother with the buffer header spinlock.  Even if someone else
> +     * need not bother with the buffer header lock.  Even if someone else
>       * changes the buffer header flags while we're doing this, we assume that
>       * changing an aligned 2-byte BufFlags value is atomic, so we'll read the
>       * old value or the new value, but not random garbage.
>       */

The rest of the comment is outdated, BufFlags isn't a 2 byte value
anymore.

> @@ -3078,7 +3168,7 @@ FlushRelationBuffers(Relation rel)
>                            localpage,
>                            false);
>  
> -                bufHdr->flags &= ~(BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED);
> +                pg_atomic_fetch_and_u32(&bufHdr->state, ~(BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED));

Hm, in other places you replaced atomics on local buffers with plain
writes.

>              lsn = XLogSaveBufferForHint(buffer, buffer_std);
>          }
>  
> -        LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> -        Assert(bufHdr->refcount > 0);
> -        if (!(bufHdr->flags & BM_DIRTY))
> +        state = LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> +
> +        Assert(BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) > 0);
> +
> +        if (!(state & BM_DIRTY))
>          {
>              dirtied = true;        /* Means "will be dirtied by this action" */

It's again worthwhile to try make this work without taking the lock.


> -    buf->flags |= BM_IO_IN_PROGRESS;
> -
> -    UnlockBufHdr(buf);
> +    state |= BM_IO_IN_PROGRESS;
> +    state &= ~BM_LOCKED;
> +    pg_atomic_write_u32(&buf->state, state);

How about making UnlockBufHdr() take a new state parameter, and
internally unset BM_LOCKED?


>  /*
> + * Lock buffer header - set BM_LOCKED in buffer state.
> + */
> +uint32
> +LockBufHdr(volatile BufferDesc *desc)
> +{
> +    SpinDelayStatus    delayStatus;
> +    uint32            state;
> +
> +    init_spin_delay(&delayStatus, (Pointer)desc, __FILE__, __LINE__);
> +
> +    state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);
> +
> +    for (;;)
> +    {
> +        /* wait till lock is free */
> +        while (state & BM_LOCKED)
> +        {
> +            make_spin_delay(&delayStatus);
> +            state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state);
> +            /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */

Outdated comment.


> +/*
> + * Unlock buffer header - unset BM_LOCKED in buffer state.
> + */
> +void
> +UnlockBufHdr(volatile BufferDesc *desc)
> +{
> +    Assert(pg_atomic_read_u32(&desc->state) & BM_LOCKED);
> +
> +    pg_atomic_sub_fetch_u32(&desc->state, BM_LOCKED);
> +}

As suggested above, there's likely no need to use an actual atomic op
here.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-28 15:46:43 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:

> > @@ -932,8 +936,13 @@ ReadBuffer_common(SMgrRelation smgr, cha
> >  
> >      if (isLocalBuf)
> >      {
> > -        /* Only need to adjust flags */
> > -        bufHdr->flags |= BM_VALID;
> > +        /*
> > +         * Only need to adjust flags.  Since it's local buffer, there is no
> > +         * concurrency.  We assume read/write pair to be cheaper than atomic OR.
> > +         */
> > +        uint32 state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&bufHdr->state);
> > +        state |= BM_VALID;
> > +        pg_atomic_write_u32(&bufHdr->state, state);
> 
> I'm not a fan of repeating that comment in multiple places. Hm.

Perhaps a set of macros should be offered that do "read, set some flag,
write".  Then the comments can be attached to the macro instead of to
each callsite.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-03-28 11:48:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > What's sizeof(BufferDesc) after applying these patches? It should better
>> > be <= 64...
>> >
>>
>> It is 72.
>
> Ah yes, miscalculated the required alignment.  Hm. So we got to get this
> smaller. I see three approaches:
>
> 1) Reduce the spinlock size on ppc. That actually might just work by
>    replacing "unsigned int" by "unsigned char"
> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
>    embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
>    op in a number of cases.
> 3) Shrink the size of BufferDesc by removing buf_id; that'd bring it to
>    64byte.
>
> I'm a bit hesitant to go for 3), because it'd likely end up adding a bit
> of arithmetic to a number of places in bufmgr.c.  Robert, what do you
> think?

I don't have a clear idea what's going to be better here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 2016-03-29 13:09:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-03-28 11:48:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> > What's sizeof(BufferDesc) after applying these patches? It should better
> >> > be <= 64...
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is 72.
> >
> > Ah yes, miscalculated the required alignment.  Hm. So we got to get this
> > smaller. I see three approaches:
> >
> > 1) Reduce the spinlock size on ppc. That actually might just work by
> >    replacing "unsigned int" by "unsigned char"
> > 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
> >    embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
> >    op in a number of cases.
> > 3) Shrink the size of BufferDesc by removing buf_id; that'd bring it to
> >    64byte.
> >
> > I'm a bit hesitant to go for 3), because it'd likely end up adding a bit
> > of arithmetic to a number of places in bufmgr.c.  Robert, what do you
> > think?
> 
> I don't have a clear idea what's going to be better here.

My gut feeling is that we should do both 1) and 2).

Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works".  I.e. replace the
#if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.

Regards,

Andres

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
> Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works".  I.e. replace the
> #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.

AFAICS, lwarx/stwcx are specifically *word* wide.
        regards, tom lane

On 2016-03-29 13:24:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
> > Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works".  I.e. replace the
> > #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.
> 
> AFAICS, lwarx/stwcx are specifically *word* wide.

Ah, x86 gcc is just too convenient, with it automatically adjusting
instruction types :(

There's actually lbarx/stbcx - but it's not present in all ISAs. So I
guess it's clear where to go.

Andres Freund

On 2016-03-29 20:22:00 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > +             while (true)
> > >               {
> > > -                     if (buf->usage_count == 0)
> > > -                             buf->usage_count = 1;
> > > +                     /* spin-wait till lock is free */
> > > +                     while (state & BM_LOCKED)
> > > +                     {
> > > +                             make_spin_delay(&delayStatus);
> > > +                             state = pg_atomic_read_u32(&buf->state);
> > > +                             oldstate = state;
> > > +                     }
> >
> > Maybe we should abstract that to pg_atomic_wait_bit_unset_u32()? It
> > seems quite likely we need this in other places (e.g. lwlock.c itself).
> >
> 
> I have some doubts about such function.  At first, I can't find a place for
> it in lwlock.c.  It doesn't run explicit spin delays yet.  Is it related to
> some changes you're planning for lwlock.c.

Yes, see http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160328130904.4mhugvkf4f3wg4qb@awork2.anarazel.de


> > >                       lsn = XLogSaveBufferForHint(buffer, buffer_std);
> > >               }
> > >
> > > -             LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> > > -             Assert(bufHdr->refcount > 0);
> > > -             if (!(bufHdr->flags & BM_DIRTY))
> > > +             state = LockBufHdr(bufHdr);
> > > +
> > > +             Assert(BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) > 0);
> > > +
> > > +             if (!(state & BM_DIRTY))
> > >               {
> > >                       dirtied = true;         /* Means "will be dirtied
> > by this action" */
> >
> > It's again worthwhile to try make this work without taking the lock.
> >
> 
> Comment there claims.
> 
> /*
>  * Set the page LSN if we wrote a backup block. We aren't supposed
>  * to set this when only holding a share lock but as long as we
>  * serialise it somehow we're OK. We choose to set LSN while
>  * holding the buffer header lock, which causes any reader of an
>  * LSN who holds only a share lock to also obtain a buffer header
>  * lock before using PageGetLSN(), which is enforced in
>  * BufferGetLSNAtomic().
> 
> Thus, buffer header lock is used for write serialization.  I don't think it
> would be correct to remove the lock here.

Gah, I forgot about this uglyness. Man, the checksumming commit sure
made a number of things really ugly.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-03-29 13:24:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICS, lwarx/stwcx are specifically *word* wide.

> There's actually lbarx/stbcx - but it's not present in all ISAs. So I
> guess it's clear where to go.

Hm.  We could certainly add a configure test to see if the local assembler
knows these instructions --- but it's not clear that we should depend on
compile-time environment to match run-time.

Googling suggests that these instructions came in with PPC ISA 2.06
which seems to date to 2010.  So there's undoubtedly still production
hardware without them.

In the department of not-production hardware, I checked this on prairiedog
and got
/var/tmp/ccbQy9uG.s:1722:Invalid mnemonic 'lbarx'
/var/tmp/ccbQy9uG.s:1726:Invalid mnemonic 'stbcx.'
        regards, tom lane

On 2016-03-29 14:09:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > There's actually lbarx/stbcx - but it's not present in all ISAs. So I
> > guess it's clear where to go.
> 
> Hm.  We could certainly add a configure test to see if the local assembler
> knows these instructions --- but it's not clear that we should depend on
> compile-time environment to match run-time.

I think it'd be easier to continue using lwarx/stwcx, but be careful
about only testing/setting the lowest byte, if we want to go there. But
that then likely would require hints about alignment to the compiler...

i've no experience writing ppc assembly, but it doesn't look too hard.


but i think it's easier to just remove the spinlock from struct lwlock
then - and it also improves the situation for other architectures with
wider spinlocks.  i think that's beneficial for some future things
anyway.

> Googling suggests that these instructions came in with PPC ISA 2.06
> which seems to date to 2010.  So there's undoubtedly still production
> hardware without them.
> 
> In the department of not-production hardware, I checked this on prairiedog
> and got
> /var/tmp/ccbQy9uG.s:1722:Invalid mnemonic 'lbarx'
> /var/tmp/ccbQy9uG.s:1726:Invalid mnemonic 'stbcx.'

Heh. Thanks for testing.


Andres

On 2016-03-30 07:13:16 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 
> > My gut feeling is that we should do both 1) and 2).
> >
> > Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
> > Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works".  I.e. replace the
> > #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.
> >
> 
> I set that, but after that it hangs, even Initdb hangs..

Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work.  I'll try to write a
patch for approach 1).

Andres

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-03-30 07:13:16 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> > My gut feeling is that we should do both 1) and 2).
>> >
>> > Dilip, could you test performance of reducing ppc's spinlock to 1 byte?
>> > Cross-compiling suggest that doing so "just works".  I.e. replace the
>> > #if defined(__ppc__) typedef from an int to a char.
>> >
>>
>> I set that, but after that it hangs, even Initdb hangs..
>
> Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work.  I'll try to write a
> patch for approach 1).

Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now
need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation?  That's has a somewhat
uncomfortable sound to it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 2016-03-31 06:54:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work.  I'll try to write a
> > patch for approach 1).
> 
> Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now
> need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation?  That's has a somewhat
> uncomfortable sound to it.

Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):

> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
>    embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
>    op in a number of cases.

precisely because of that concern.

On 2016-03-31 12:58:55 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-31 06:54:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > Yea, as Tom pointed out that's not going to work.  I'll try to write a
> > > patch for approach 1).
> >
> > Does this mean that any platform that wants to perform well will now
> > need a sub-4-byte spinlock implementation?  That's has a somewhat
> > uncomfortable sound to it.
>
> Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):
>
> > 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
> >    embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
> >    op in a number of cases.
>
> precisely because of that concern.

Here's a WIP patch to evaluate. Dilip/Ashutosh, could you perhaps run
some benchmarks, to see whether this addresses the performance issues?

I guess it'd both be interesting to compare master with master + patch,
and this thread's latest patch with the patch additionally applied.

Thanks!

Andres

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):

>> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
>> embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
>> op in a number of cases.

> precisely because of that concern.

Oh, okay, ignore my comment just now in the other thread.
        regards, tom lane

Hi,

> +/*
> + * The following two macros are aimed to simplify buffer state modification
> + * in CAS loop.  It's assumed that variable "uint32 state" is defined outside
> + * of this loop.  It should be used as following:
> + *
> + * BEGIN_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr);
> + * modifications of state variable;
> + * END_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr);
> + *
> + * For local buffers, these macros shouldn't be used..  Since there is
> + * no cuncurrency, local buffer state could be chaged directly by atomic
> + * read/write operations.
> + */
> +#define BEGIN_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr) \
> +    do { \
> +        SpinDelayStatus    delayStatus = init_spin_delay((Pointer)(bufHdr)); \

> +        uint32            oldstate; \
> +        oldstate = pg_atomic_read_u32(&(bufHdr)->state); \
> +        for (;;) { \
> +            while (oldstate & BM_LOCKED) \
> +            { \
> +                make_spin_delay(&delayStatus); \
> +                oldstate = pg_atomic_read_u32(&(bufHdr)->state); \
> +            } \
> +            state = oldstate
> +
> +#define END_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr) \
> +            if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(&bufHdr->state, &oldstate, state)) \
> +                break; \
> +        } \
> +        finish_spin_delay(&delayStatus); \
> +    } while (0)

Hm. Not sure if that's not too much magic. Will think about it.

>   /*
> +  * Lock buffer header - set BM_LOCKED in buffer state.
> +  */
> + uint32
> + LockBufHdr(BufferDesc *desc)
> + {
> +     uint32            state;
> + 
> +     BEGIN_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(desc);
> +     state |= BM_LOCKED;
> +     END_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(desc);
> + 
> +     return state;
> + }
> + 

Hm. It seems a bit over the top to do the full round here. How about

uint32 oldstate;
while (true)
{   oldstate = pg_atomic_fetch_or(..., BM_LOCKED);   if (!(oldstate & BM_LOCKED)       break;   perform_spin_delay();
}
return oldstate | BM_LOCKED;

Especially if we implement atomic xor on x86, that'd likely be a good
bit more efficient.


>  typedef struct BufferDesc
>  {
>      BufferTag    tag;            /* ID of page contained in buffer */
> -    BufFlags    flags;            /* see bit definitions above */
> -    uint8        usage_count;    /* usage counter for clock sweep code */
> -    slock_t        buf_hdr_lock;    /* protects a subset of fields, see above */
> -    unsigned    refcount;        /* # of backends holding pins on buffer */
> -    int            wait_backend_pid;        /* backend PID of pin-count waiter */
>  
> +    /* state of the tag, containing flags, refcount and usagecount */
> +    pg_atomic_uint32 state;
> +
> +    int            wait_backend_pid;        /* backend PID of pin-count waiter */
>      int            buf_id;            /* buffer's index number (from 0) */
>      int            freeNext;        /* link in freelist chain */

Hm. Won't matter on most platforms, but it seems like a good idea to
move to an 8 byte aligned boundary. Move buf_id up?

> +/*
> + * Support for spin delay which could be useful in other places where
> + * spinlock-like procedures take place.
> + */
> +typedef struct
> +{
> +    int            spins;
> +    int            delays;
> +    int            cur_delay;
> +    Pointer        ptr;
> +    const char *file;
> +    int            line;
> +} SpinDelayStatus;
> +
> +#define init_spin_delay(ptr) {0, 0, 0, (ptr), __FILE__, __LINE__}
> +
> +void make_spin_delay(SpinDelayStatus *status);
> +void finish_spin_delay(SpinDelayStatus *status);
> +
>  #endif     /* S_LOCK_H */

s/make_spin_delay/perform_spin_delay/? The former sounds like it's
allocating something or such.


Regards,

Andres

On 2016-04-01 13:50:10 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I think it needs more number of runs.. After seeing this results I did not
> run head+pinunpin,
> 
> Head 64 Client 128 Client
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Run1 434860 356945
> Run2 275815 *275815*
> Run3 437872 366560
> Patch 64 Client 128 Client
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Run1 429520 372958
> Run2 446249 *167189*
> Run3 431066 381592
> Patch+Pinunpin  64 Client 128 Client
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Run1 338298 642535
> Run2 406240 644187
> Run3 595439 *285420 *

Could you describe the exact setup a bit more? Postgres settings,
pgbench parameters, etc.

What's the size of BufferDesc after applying the patch?

Thanks,

Andres

On 2016-04-01 10:35:18 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-04-01 13:50:10 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > I think it needs more number of runs.. After seeing this results I did not
> > run head+pinunpin,
> > 
> > Head 64 Client 128 Client
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Run1 434860 356945
> > Run2 275815 *275815*
> > Run3 437872 366560
> > Patch 64 Client 128 Client
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Run1 429520 372958
> > Run2 446249 *167189*
> > Run3 431066 381592
> > Patch+Pinunpin  64 Client 128 Client
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Run1 338298 642535
> > Run2 406240 644187
> > Run3 595439 *285420 *
> 
> Could you describe the exact setup a bit more? Postgres settings,
> pgbench parameters, etc.
> 
> What's the size of BufferDesc after applying the patch?

One interesting thing to do would be to use -P1 during the test and see
how much the performance varies over time.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Hi,

On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 6. With Head+ pinunpin-cas-8 +
> 0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect performance is
> almost same as with
> Head+pinunpin-cas-8, only sometime performance at 128 client is low
> (~250,000 instead of 650,000)

Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?

Regards,

Andres

On 2016-04-05 17:36:49 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Could the reason be that we're increasing concurrency for LWLock state
> atomic variable by placing queue spinlock there?

Don't think so, it's the same cache-line either way.

> But I wonder why this could happen during "pgbench -S", because it doesn't
> seem to have high traffic of exclusive LWLocks.

Yea, that confuses me too. I suspect there's some mis-aligned
datastructures somewhere. It's hard to investigate such things without
access to hardware.

(FWIW, I'm working on getting pinunpin committed)

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2016-04-05 20:56:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This fluctuation started appearing after commit 6150a1b0 which we have
> discussed in another thread [1] and a colleague of mine is working on to
> write a patch to try to revert it on current HEAD and then see the results.

I don't see what that buys us. That commit is a good win on x86...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-05 20:56:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> This fluctuation started appearing after commit 6150a1b0 which we have
>> discussed in another thread [1] and a colleague of mine is working on to
>> write a patch to try to revert it on current HEAD and then see the results.
>
> I don't see what that buys us. That commit is a good win on x86...

Maybe.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that that is an
overgeneralization.  Based on some results Mithun Cy showed me this
morning, I think that some of this enormous run-to-run fluctuation
that we're seeing is due to NUMA effects.  So some runs we get two
things that are frequently accessed together on the same NUMA node and
other times they get placed on different NUMA nodes and then
everything sucks.  I don't think we fully understand what's going on
here yet - and I think we're committing changes in this area awfully
quickly - but I see no reason to believe that x86 is immune to such
effects.  They may just happen in different scenarios than what we see
on POWER.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 2016-04-05 12:14:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-04-05 20:56:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> This fluctuation started appearing after commit 6150a1b0 which we have
> >> discussed in another thread [1] and a colleague of mine is working on to
> >> write a patch to try to revert it on current HEAD and then see the results.
> >
> > I don't see what that buys us. That commit is a good win on x86...
> 
> Maybe.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that that is an
> overgeneralization.  Based on some results Mithun Cy showed me this
> morning, I think that some of this enormous run-to-run fluctuation
> that we're seeing is due to NUMA effects.  So some runs we get two
> things that are frequently accessed together on the same NUMA node and
> other times they get placed on different NUMA nodes and then
> everything sucks.  I don't think we fully understand what's going on
> here yet - and I think we're committing changes in this area awfully
> quickly - but I see no reason to believe that x86 is immune to such
> effects.  They may just happen in different scenarios than what we see
> on POWER.

I'm not really following - we were talking about 6150a1b0 ("Move buffer
I/O and content LWLocks out of the main tranche.") made four months
ago. Afaics the atomic buffer pin patch is a pretty clear win on both
ppc and x86?

I agree that there's numa effects we don't understand.  I think
re-considering Kevin's patch that did explicit numa hinting on linux
would be rather worthwhile. It makes a lot of sense to force shmem to be
force-interleaved, but make backend local memory, uh, local.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-05 12:14:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > On 2016-04-05 20:56:31 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >> This fluctuation started appearing after commit 6150a1b0 which we have
>> >> discussed in another thread [1] and a colleague of mine is working on to
>> >> write a patch to try to revert it on current HEAD and then see the results.
>> >
>> > I don't see what that buys us. That commit is a good win on x86...
>>
>> Maybe.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that that is an
>> overgeneralization.  Based on some results Mithun Cy showed me this
>> morning, I think that some of this enormous run-to-run fluctuation
>> that we're seeing is due to NUMA effects.  So some runs we get two
>> things that are frequently accessed together on the same NUMA node and
>> other times they get placed on different NUMA nodes and then
>> everything sucks.  I don't think we fully understand what's going on
>> here yet - and I think we're committing changes in this area awfully
>> quickly - but I see no reason to believe that x86 is immune to such
>> effects.  They may just happen in different scenarios than what we see
>> on POWER.
>
> I'm not really following - we were talking about 6150a1b0 ("Move buffer
> I/O and content LWLocks out of the main tranche.") made four months
> ago. Afaics the atomic buffer pin patch is a pretty clear win on both
> ppc and x86?

The point is that the testing Amit's team is doing can't tell the
answer to that question one way or another.  6150a1b0 completely
destabilized performance on our test systems to the point where
testing subsequent patches is extremely difficult.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 2016-04-05 12:56:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
> > experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
> > (requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?
> >
> 
> I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around
> 550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of
> fluctuations..
> 
> *128 client
> **(head+**0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect
> +pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)*
> 
> run1 645769
> run2 643161
> run3 *285546*
> run4 *289421*
> run5 630772
> run6 *284363*

I wonder what
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=09adc9a8c09c9640de05c7023b27fb83c761e91c
does to all these numbers. It seems entirely possible that "this" is
mainly changing the alignment of some common datastructures...

- Andres

Hi,

On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:

> Summary Of the Run:
> -----------------------------
> 1. Throughout one run if we observe TPS every 30 seconds its stable in one
> run.
> 2. With Head 64 client run vary between ~250,000 to ~450000. you can see
> below results.
> 
> run1: 434860    (5min)
> run2: 275815    (5min)
> run3: 437872    (5min)
> run4: 237033   (5min)
> run5: 347611    (10min)
> run6: 435933   (20min)

> > [1] -
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160401083518.GE9074@awork2.anarazel.de
> >
> 
> 
> Non Default Parameter:
> --------------------------------
> shared_buffer 8GB
> Max Connections 150
> 
> ./pgbench -c $threads -j $threads -T 1200 -M prepared -S -P 30 postgres

Which scale did you initialize with? I'm trying to reproduce the
workload on hydra as precisely as possible...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2016-04-06 11:52:28 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2016-04-03 16:47:49 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> 
> > Summary Of the Run:
> > -----------------------------
> > 1. Throughout one run if we observe TPS every 30 seconds its stable in one
> > run.
> > 2. With Head 64 client run vary between ~250,000 to ~450000. you can see
> > below results.
> > 
> > run1: 434860    (5min)
> > run2: 275815    (5min)
> > run3: 437872    (5min)
> > run4: 237033   (5min)
> > run5: 347611    (10min)
> > run6: 435933   (20min)
> 
> > > [1] -
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160401083518.GE9074@awork2.anarazel.de
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Non Default Parameter:
> > --------------------------------
> > shared_buffer 8GB
> > Max Connections 150
> > 
> > ./pgbench -c $threads -j $threads -T 1200 -M prepared -S -P 30 postgres
> 
> Which scale did you initialize with? I'm trying to reproduce the
> workload on hydra as precisely as possible...

On hydra, even after a fair amount of tinkering, I cannot reprodue such
variability.

Pin/Unpin only has a minor effect itself, reducing the size of lwlock
on-top improves performance (378829 to 409914 TPS) in
intentionally short 15s tests (warm cache) with 128 clients; as well as
to a lower degree in 120s tests (415921 to 420487).

It appears, over 5 runs, that the alignment fix shortens the rampup
phase from about 100s to about 8; interesting.

Andres

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Which scale did you initialize with? I'm trying to reproduce the
>> workload on hydra as precisely as possible...
>
> I tested with scale factor 300, shared buffer 8GB.
>
> My test script is attached with the mail (perf_pgbench_ro.sh).
>
> I have done some more test on power (same machine)

I spent a lot of time testing things on power2 today and also
discussed with Andres via IM.  Andres came up with a few ideas to
reduce the variability, which I tried.  One of those was to run the
server under numactl --interleave=all (that is, numactl
--interleave=all pg_ctl start etc.) and another was to set
kernel.numa_balancing = 0 (it was set to 1).  Neither of those things
seemed to prevent the problem of run-to-run variability.  Andres also
suggested running pgbench with "-P 1", which revealed that it was
generally possible to tell what the overall performance of a run was
going to be like within 10-20 seconds.  Runs that started out fast
stayed fast, and those that started out slower remained slower.
Therefore, long runs didn't seem to be necessary for testing, so I
switched to using 2-minute test runs launched via pgbench -T 120 -c 64
-j 64 -n -M prepared -S -P1.

After quite a bit of experimentation, Andres hit on an idea that did
succeed in drastically reducing the run-to-run variation: prewarming
all of the relations in a deterministic order before starting the
test.  I used this query:

psql -c "select sum(x.x) from (select pg_prewarm(oid) as x from
pg_class where relkind in ('i', 'r') order by oid) x;"

With that change to my test script, the results became much more
stable.  I tested four different builds of the server: commit 3fed4174
(that is, the one just before where you have been reporting the
variability to have begun), commit 6150a1b0 (the one you reported that
the variability actually did begin), master as of this morning
(actually commit cac0e366), and master + pinunpin-cas-9.patch +
0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect-.patch +
backoff.patch (herein called "andres").  The first and last of these
have 64-byte BufferDescs, and the others have 80-byte BufferDescs.
Without prewarming, I see high and low results on *all* of these
builds, even 3fed4174.  I did nine test runs with each configuration
with and without prewarming, and here are the results.  With each
result I have reported the raw numbers, plus the median and the range
(highest result - lowest result).

-- without prewarming --
3fed4174
tps by run: 249165.928992 300958.039880 501281.083247
488073.289603 251033.038275 272086.063197
522287.023374 528855.922328 266057.502255
median: 300958.039880, range: 206687.132100

6150a1b0
tps by run: 455853.061092 438628.888369 353643.017507
419850.232715 424353.870515 440219.581180
431805.001465 237528.175877 431789.666417
median: 431789.666417, range: 218324.885215

master
tps by run: 427808.559919 366625.640433 376165.188508
441349.141152 363381.095198 352925.252345
348975.712841 446626.284308 444633.921009
median: 376165.188508, range: 97650.571467

andres
tps by run: 391123.866928 423525.415037 496103.017599
346707.246825 531194.321999 466100.337795
517708.470146 355392.837942 510817.921728
median: 466100.337795, range: 184487.075174

-- with prewarming --
3fed4174
tps by run: 413239.471751 428996.202541 488206.103941
493788.533491 497953.728875 498074.092686
501719.406720 508880.505416 509868.266778
median: 497953.728875, range: 96628.795027

6150a1b0
tps by run: 421589.299889 438765.851782 440601.270742
440649.818900 443033.460295 447317.269583
452831.480337 456387.316178 460140.159903
median: 443033.460295, range: 38550.860014

master
tps by run: 427211.917303 427796.174209 435601.396857
436581.431219 442329.269335 446438.814270
449970.003595 450085.123059 456231.229966
median: 442329.269335, range: 29019.312663

andres
tps by run: 425513.771259 429219.907952 433838.084721
451354.257738 494735.045808 495301.319716
517166.054466 531655.887669 546984.476602
median: 494735.045808, range: 121470.705343

My belief is that the first set of numbers has so much jigger that you
can't really draw any meaningful conclusions.  For two of the four
branches, the range is more than 50% of the median, which is enormous.
You could probably draw some conclusions if you took enough
measurements, but it's pretty hard. Notice that that set of numbers
makes 6150a1b0 look like a performance improvement, whereas the second
set makes it pretty clear that 6150a1b0 was a regression.

Also, the patch set is clearly winning here.  It picks up 90k TPS
median on the first set of numbers and 50k TPS median on the second
set.

It's fairly mysterious to me why there is so much jitter in the
results on this machine. By doing prewarming in a consistent fashion,
we make sure that every disk run puts the same disk blocks in the same
buffers.  Andres guessed that maybe the degree of associativity of the
CPU caches comes into play here: depending on where the hot data is we
either get the important cache lines in places where they can all be
cached at once, or we get them in places where they can't all be
cached at once.  But if that's really what is going on here, it's
shocking that it makes this much difference.

However, my conclusion based on these results is that (1) the patch is
a win and (2) the variability on this machine didn't begin with
6150a1b0.  YMMV, of course, but that's what I think.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Hi,

On 2016-04-06 21:58:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I spent a lot of time testing things on power2 today

Thanks for that!

> It's fairly mysterious to me why there is so much jitter in the
> results on this machine. By doing prewarming in a consistent fashion,
> we make sure that every disk run puts the same disk blocks in the same
> buffers.  Andres guessed that maybe the degree of associativity of the
> CPU caches comes into play here: depending on where the hot data is we
> either get the important cache lines in places where they can all be
> cached at once, or we get them in places where they can't all be
> cached at once.  But if that's really what is going on here, it's
> shocking that it makes this much difference.

I'm not sure at all that that is indeed the reason. I think it'd be
quite worthwhile to
a) collect perf stat -ddd of a slow and a fast run, compare
b) collect a perf profile of a slow and fast run, run perf diff
c) add perf probes for lwlocks and spinlocks where we ended up sleeping,  check whether the two runs have different
distributionof which  locks ended up sleeping.
 

I'm also wondering if the idea from
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20160407082711.q7iq3ykffqxcszkv%40alap3.anarazel.de
both with/without preloading, changes variability.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 2016-03-31 20:21:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> !     BEGIN_BUFSTATE_CAS_LOOP(bufHdr);
>   
> !     Assert(BUF_STATE_GET_REFCOUNT(state) > 0);
> !     wasDirty = (state & BM_DIRTY) ? true : false;
> !     state |= BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED;
> !     if (state == oldstate)
> !         break;

I'm doubtful that this early exit is entirely safe. None of the
preceding operations imply a memory barrier. The buffer could previously
have been marked dirty, but cleaned since. It's pretty critical that we
re-set the dirty bit (there's no danger of loosing it with a barrier,
because we hold an exclusive content lock).

Practically the risk seems fairly low, because acquiring the exclusive
content lock will have implied a barrier. But it seems unlikely to have
a measurable performance effect to me, so I'd rather not add the early
exit.

Andres