[HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Van Fleet
Subject [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts
Date
Msg-id OFBAB24999.8DB8C8DE-ON86258136.006AEB24-86258136.006B30C8@notes.na.collabserv.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multipleparts  (Sokolov Yura <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>)
Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

If there is interest in this approach, I will submit a patch.

Jim Van Fleet


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] shm_toc_lookup API
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher setapplication_name?