Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Date
Msg-id CACjxUsM+E6VRSZHMOJbtLogtHmLZusLVDRz+oKj78qrAjTLpSQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-committers
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-13 15:21:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:

>> What is the kernel on which these tests were run?
>
> 3.16. I can upgrade to 4.4 if necessary.

No, I'm not aware of any problems from 3.8 on.

> But I still believe very strongly that this is side-tracking the issue.

As long as I know it isn't a broken NUMA scheduler, or that there
were fewer than four NUMA memory nodes, I consider it a non-issue.
I just need to know whether it fits that problem profile to feel
comfortable that I can interpret the results correctly.

>> Which pg commit were these tests run against?
>
> 85e00470. + some reverts (the whitespace commits make this harder...) in
> the reverted case.
>
>
>> If 2201d801 was not included in your -1 tests, have you identified
>> where the 2% extra run time is going on -1 versus reverted?
>
> No. It's hard to do good profiles on most virtualized hardware, since
> hardware performance counters are disabled. So you only can do OS
> sampling; which has a pretty big performance influence.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean with "2201d801 was not included in
> your -1 tests". The optimization was present.

Sorry, the "not" was accidental -- I hate reverse logic errors like that.

Based on the commit you used, I have my answer.  Thanks.

>> Since several other threads lately have reported bigger variation than
>> that based on random memory alignment issues, can we confirm that this
>> is a real difference in what is at master's HEAD?
>
> It's unfortunately hard to measure this conclusively here (and in
> general). I guess we'll have to look, on native hardware, where the
> difference comes from.  The difference is smaller on my laptop, and my
> workstation is somewhere on a container ship, other physical hardware I
> do not have.

OK, thanks.  I can't think of anything else to ask for at this
point.  If you feel that you have enough to press for some
particular course of action, go for it.  Personally, I want to do
some more investigation on those big machines.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Fix assorted portability issues with using msync() for data flus