On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been experimenting with splitting the ProcArrayLock into parts.
> That is, to Acquire the ProcArrayLock in shared mode, it is only necessary
> to acquire one of the parts in shared mode; to acquire the lock in exclusive
> mode, all of the parts must be acquired in exclusive mode. For those
> interested, I have attached a design description of the change.
>
> This approach has been quite successful on large systems with the hammerdb
> benchmark.With a prototype based on 10 master source and running on power8
> (model 8335-GCA with 2sockets, 20 core)
> hammerdb improved by 16%; On intel (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @
> 2.20GHz, 2 socket, 44 core) with 9.6 base and prototype hammerdb improved by
> 4%. (attached is a set of spreadsheets for power8.
>
> The down side is that on smaller configurations (single socket) where there
> is less "lock thrashing" in the storage subsystem and there are multiple
> Lwlocks to take for an exclusive acquire, there is a decided downturn in
> performance. On hammerdb, the prototype was 6% worse than the base on a
> single socket power configuration.
>
I think any patch having 6% regression on one machine configuration
and 16% improvement on another machine configuration is not a net win.
However, if there is a way to address the regression, then it will
look much attractive.
> If there is interest in this approach, I will submit a patch.
>
The basic idea is clear from your description, but it will be better
if you share the patch as well. It will not only help people to
review and provide you feedback but also allow them to test and see if
they can reproduce the numbers you have mentioned in the mail.
There is some related work which was previously proposed in this area
("Cache the snapshot") [1] and it claims to reduce contention around
ProcArrayLock. I am not sure if that patch still applies, however, if
you find it relevant and you are interested in evaluating the same,
then we can request the author to post a rebased version if it doesn't
apply.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD__OuiwEi5sHe2wwQCK36Ac9QMhvJuqG3CfPN%2BOFCMb7rdruQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
