Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-01-08 23:58:16 +0000, Robert Haas wrote: >> Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks. >> >> Instead of allocating a semaphore from the operating system for every >> spinlock, allocate a fixed number of semaphores (by default, 1024) >> from the operating system and multiplex all the spinlocks that get >> created onto them. This could self-deadlock if a process attempted >> to acquire more than one spinlock at a time, but since processes >> aren't supposed to execute anything other than short stretches of >> straight-line code while holding a spinlock, that shouldn't happen. >> >> One motivation for this change is that, with the introduction of >> dynamic shared memory, it may be desirable to create spinlocks that >> last for less than the lifetime of the server. Without this change, >> attempting to use such facilities under --disable-spinlocks would >> quickly exhaust any supply of available semaphores. Quite apart >> from that, it's desirable to contain the quantity of semaphores >> needed to run the server simply on convenience grounds, since using >> too many may make it harder to get PostgreSQL running on a new >> platform, which is mostly the point of --disable-spinlocks in the >> first place. > > I'm looking at the way you did this in the context of the atomics > patch. Won't: > s_init_lock_sema(volatile slock_t *lock) > { > static int counter = 0; > > *lock = (++counter) % NUM_SPINLOCK_SEMAPHORES; > } > > lead to bad results if spinlocks are intialized after startup? Why? > Essentially mapping new spinlocks to the same semaphore? Yeah, but so what? If we're mapping a bajillion spinlocks to the same semaphore already, what's a few more? > That's a > restriction I can live with, especially as this is only for super old > platforms. But it might be worth mentioning somewhere? Dunno. What restriction? > I've essentially reeimplemented that kind of logic in the atomics > patch. Looking to get rid of the duplication... There I used something > like > slot = ((uintptr_t) addr_of_atomic >> (sizeof(void*) + 5)) % NUM_LOCKS > but I think your method is actually better because it allows to place > spinlocks/atomics to be placed in dsm segments placed at different > location in individual processes. Right. > My current plan to get rid of the duplication is to simply embed the > spinlock inside the atomic variable instead of having a separate array > of spinlocks protecting atomic variables. Doesn't sound crazy at first glance. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.
From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2014-06-18 15:52:49 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2014-01-08 23:58:16 +0000, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks. > >> > >> Instead of allocating a semaphore from the operating system for every > >> spinlock, allocate a fixed number of semaphores (by default, 1024) > >> from the operating system and multiplex all the spinlocks that get > >> created onto them. This could self-deadlock if a process attempted > >> to acquire more than one spinlock at a time, but since processes > >> aren't supposed to execute anything other than short stretches of > >> straight-line code while holding a spinlock, that shouldn't happen. > >> > >> One motivation for this change is that, with the introduction of > >> dynamic shared memory, it may be desirable to create spinlocks that > >> last for less than the lifetime of the server. Without this change, > >> attempting to use such facilities under --disable-spinlocks would > >> quickly exhaust any supply of available semaphores. Quite apart > >> from that, it's desirable to contain the quantity of semaphores > >> needed to run the server simply on convenience grounds, since using > >> too many may make it harder to get PostgreSQL running on a new > >> platform, which is mostly the point of --disable-spinlocks in the > >> first place. > > > > I'm looking at the way you did this in the context of the atomics > > patch. Won't: > > s_init_lock_sema(volatile slock_t *lock) > > { > > static int counter = 0; > > > > *lock = (++counter) % NUM_SPINLOCK_SEMAPHORES; > > } > > > > lead to bad results if spinlocks are intialized after startup? > > Why? Because every further process will start with a copy of the postmaster's counter or with 0 (EXEC_BACKEND)? > > Essentially mapping new spinlocks to the same semaphore? > > Yeah, but so what? If we're mapping a bajillion spinlocks to the same > semaphore already, what's a few more? Well, imagine something like parallel query creating new segments, including a spinlock (possibly via a lwlock) at runtime. If there were several backends processing such queries this they'd all map to the same semaphore. Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > I'm looking at the way you did this in the context of the atomics >> > patch. Won't: >> > s_init_lock_sema(volatile slock_t *lock) >> > { >> > static int counter = 0; >> > >> > *lock = (++counter) % NUM_SPINLOCK_SEMAPHORES; >> > } >> > >> > lead to bad results if spinlocks are intialized after startup? >> >> Why? > > Because every further process will start with a copy of the postmaster's > counter or with 0 (EXEC_BACKEND)? Oh, true. Maybe we should randomize that. >> > Essentially mapping new spinlocks to the same semaphore? >> >> Yeah, but so what? If we're mapping a bajillion spinlocks to the same >> semaphore already, what's a few more? > > Well, imagine something like parallel query creating new segments, > including a spinlock (possibly via a lwlock) at runtime. If there were > several backends processing such queries this they'd all map to the same > semaphore. Yeah. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company