Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure
Date
Msg-id 20200102074602.GA2148563@rfd.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:39:32AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:57:39 -0800, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote in 
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 07:41:49PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > If we regard repalloc as far faster than FileOpen/FileClose or we care
> > > about only increase of segment number of mdopen'ed files and don't
> > > care the frequent resize that happens during the functions above, then
> > > the comment is right and we may resize the array in the
> > > segment-by-segment manner.
> > 
> > In most cases, the array will fit into a power-of-two chunk, so repalloc()
> > already does the right thing.  Once the table has more than ~1000 segments (~1
> > TiB table size), the allocation will get a single-chunk block, and every
> > subsequent repalloc() will call realloc().  Even then, repalloc() probably is
> > far faster than File operations.  Likely, I should just accept the extra
> > repalloc() calls and drop the "else if" change in _fdvec_resize().
> 
> I'm not sure which is better. If we say we know that
> repalloc(AllocSetRealloc) doesn't free memory at all, there's no point
> in calling repalloc for shrinking and we could omit that under the
> name of optimization.  If we say we want to free memory as much as
> possible, we should call repalloc pretending to believe that that
> happens.

As long as we free the memory by the end of mdclose(), I think it doesn't
matter whether we freed memory in the middle of mdclose().

I ran a crude benchmark that found PathNameOpenFile()+FileClose() costing at
least two hundred times as much as the repalloc() pair.  Hence, I now plan not
to avoid repalloc(), as attached.  Crude benchmark code:

    #define NSEG 9000
    for (i = 0; i < count1; i++)
    {
        int j;

        for (j = 0; j < NSEG; ++j)
        {
            File f = PathNameOpenFile("/etc/services", O_RDONLY);
            if (f < 0)
                elog(ERROR, "fail open: %m");
            FileClose(f);
        }
    }

    for (i = 0; i < count2; i++)
    {
        int j;
        void *buf = palloc(1);

        for (j = 2; j < NSEG; ++j)
            buf = repalloc(buf, j * 8);
        while (--j > 0)
            buf = repalloc(buf, j * 8);
    }

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE on foreign tables
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum