On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 1:37 AM Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
> > Maybe we could decouple locks and counters from SLRU banks? Banks were meant to be small to exploit performance of
locallinear search. Lock partitions have to be bigger for sure.
>
> Yeah, that could also be an idea if we plan to drop the hash. I mean
> bank-wise counter is fine as we are finding a victim buffer within a
> bank itself, but each lock could cover more slots than one bank size
> or in other words, it can protect multiple banks. Let's hear more
> opinion on this.
Here is the updated version of the patch, here I have taken the
approach suggested by Andrey and I discussed the same with Alvaro
offlist and he also agrees with it. So the idea is that we will keep
the bank size fixed which is 16 buffers per bank and the allowed GUC
value for each slru buffer must be in multiple of the bank size. We
have removed the centralized lock but instead of one lock per bank, we
have kept the maximum limit on the number of bank locks which is 128.
We kept the max limit as 128 because, in one of the operations (i.e.
ActivateCommitTs), we need to acquire all the bank locks (but this is
not a performance path at all) and at a time we can acquire a max of
200 LWlocks, so we think this limit of 128 is good. So now if the
number of banks is <= 128 then we will be using one lock per bank
otherwise the one lock may protect access of buffer in multiple banks.
We might argue that we should keep the max lock lesser than 128 i.e.
64 or 32 and I am open to that we can do more experiments with a very
large buffer pool and a very heavy workload to see whether having lock
up to 128 is helpful or not
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
