On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 09:23, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2022-08-09 15:21:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Do we really need it to be that tight? I know we only have 3 methods today,
> >> but 8 doesn't seem that far away. If there were six bits reserved for
> >> this I'd be happier.
>
> > We only have so many bits available, so that'd have to come from some other
> > resource. The current division is:
>
> > + * 1. 3-bits to indicate the MemoryContextMethodID
> > + * 2. 1-bit to indicate if the chunk is externally managed (see below)
> > + * 3. 30-bits for the amount of memory which was reserved for the chunk
> > + * 4. 30-bits for the number of bytes that must be subtracted from the chunk
> > + * to obtain the address of the block that the chunk is stored on.
>
> > I suspect we could reduce 3) here a bit, which I think would end up with slab
> > context's max chunkSize shrinking further. Which should still be fine.
>
> Hmm, I suppose you mean we could reduce 4) if we needed to. Yeah, that
> seems like a reasonable place to buy more bits later if we run out of
> MemoryContextMethodIDs. Should be fine then.
I think he means 3). If 4) was reduced then that would further reduce
the maxBlockSize we could pass when creating a context. At least for
aset.c and generation.c, we don't really need 3) to be 30-bits wide as
the set->allocChunkLimit is almost certainly much smaller than that.
Allocations bigger than allocChunkLimit use a dedicated block with an
external chunk. External chunks don't use 3) or 4).
David
