Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:19:49AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading the fast-path lock code, I noticed that GetLockStatusData()
> checks all slots for every backend to gather fast-path lock data. However,
> backends with PID=0 don't hold fast-path locks, right?
I think the same as those are not a "regular" backend.
> If so, we can
> improve efficiency by having GetLockStatusData() skip those backends early.
Agree.
> Additionally, when GetLockStatusData() checks a backend, it currently
> goes through all the slots accross its groups. Each group has 16 slots,
> so if a backend has 4 groups (this can change depending on max_locks_per_transaction),
> that means checking 64 slots. Instead, we could refactor the function
> to skip groups without registered fast-path locks, improving performance.
> Since each set of 16 slots is packed into a uint32 variable (PGPROC->fpLockBits[i]),
> it’s easy to check if a group has any fast-path locks.
>
> I've attached a patch that implements these changes. This refactoring is
> especially useful when max_connections and max_locks_per_transaction are
> set high, as it reduces unnecessary checks across numerous slots.
I think that your refactoring proposal makes sense.
A few random comments on it:
1 ===
+ /* Skip backends with pid=0, as they don't hold fast-path locks */
+ if (proc->pid == 0)
+ continue;
What about adding a few words in the comment that it represents prepared
transactions? Or maybe add a new macro (say IS_PREPARED_TRANSACTION(proc)) and
use it in the few places where we check for "PGPROC"->pid == 0 or "PGPROC"->pid != 0?
2 ===
- for (f = 0; f < FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND; ++f)
+ for (uint32 g = 0; g < FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend; g++)
{
As FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND = (FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP * FastPathLockGroupsPerBackend)
then the proposed approach starts with a "smaller" loop which makes sense.
and then the patch:
+ for (int j = 0; j < FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_GROUP; j++)
So that we are covering "FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND" but discarded groups that
do not contain registered fast-path locks:
+ /* Skip unallocated groups */
+ if (proc->fpLockBits[g] == 0)
That does make sense to me.
One remark about the comment, what about?
s/Skip unallocated groups/Skip groups without registered fast-path locks./?
or at least add a "." at the end to be consistent with:
"/* Skip unallocated slots. */"
3 ===
One thing that worry me a bit is that we "lost" the FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND usage,
so that if there is a change on it (for wathever reason) then we probably need to
be careful that the change would be reflected here too.
So, what about to add an Assert to check that we overall iterated over FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND?
4 ===
Then the patch does move existing code around and just add a call to FAST_PATH_SLOT()
to get fast-path lock slot index based on the group and slot indexes we are iterating
on.
That does make sense to me.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
