Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> Wednesday 23 March 2011 21:30:04
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It looks like the only way anything can ever get put on the free list
> > right now is if a relation or database is dropped. That doesn't seem
> > too good. I wonder if the background writer shouldn't be trying to
> > maintain the free list. That is, perhaps BgBufferSync() should notice
> > when the number of free buffers drops below some threshold, and run
> > the clock sweep enough to get it back up to that threshold.
>
> I think this is just a terminology discrepancy. In postgres the free
> list is only used for buffers that contain no useful data at all. The
> only time there are buffers on the free list is at startup or if a
> relation or database is dropped.
>
> Most of the time blocks are read into buffers that already contain
> other data. Candidate buffers to evict are buffers that have been used
> least recently. That's what the clock sweep implements.
>
> What the bgwriter's responsible for is looking at the buffers *ahead*
> of the clock sweep and flushing them to disk. They stay in ram and
> don't go on the free list, all that changes is that they're clean and
> therefore can be reused without having to do any i/o.
>
> I'm a bit skeptical that this works because as soon as bgwriter
> saturates the i/o the os will throttle the rate at which it can write.
> When that happens even a few dozens of milliseconds will be plenty to
> allow the purely user-space processes consuming the buffers to catch
> up instantly.
>
> But Greg Smith has done a lot of work tuning the bgwriter so that it
> is at least useful in some circumstances. I could well see it being
> useful for systems where latency matters and the i/o is not saturated.
Freelist is almost useless under normal operations, but it's only one check if
it's empty or not, which could be optimized by checking (...> -1), or !(... <
0)
Regards,
Radek
