Message-ID: <cd16c4a3-2860-46de-a74e-5532d1b2ee39@vondra.me>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:47:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: pgsql: Introduce pg_shmem_allocations_numa view
To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@postgresql.org>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <g3mywoeo7jmh6rci7epx2ishowgz65q2j7ek3c5f3lxcmvuktg@ler2fsv4szmn>
 <aFlwrNqKjHC1vj8h@msg.df7cb.de> <aFl53B_JNN3i-viX@msg.df7cb.de>
 <kl4zd72eeaex7zcicpuvpsuslrs5nfvmab7xzt4jnvcjvd6mxw@tcp64c55qkpj>
 <aFmxxHVS9XwbQ_em@msg.df7cb.de>
 <6c9f9f7e-947b-4fc3-bdb6-b0696d7492e5@vondra.me>
 <aFm5tmSFwhGX7mA7@msg.df7cb.de>
 <ce305c79-0a68-46ce-b563-ab9f87bb5f20@vondra.me>
 <aFm-ZfL-vz9I2Zmc@msg.df7cb.de>
 <0643ae61-cf9d-482c-9b2c-fb861b24fd22@vondra.me>
 <aFnGQ2lfb8cfukim@msg.df7cb.de>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: <aFnGQ2lfb8cfukim@msg.df7cb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cd16c4a3-2860-46de-a74e-5532d1b2ee39%40vondra.me>
Precedence: bulk


On 6/23/25 23:25, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Tomas Vondra
>> True. If it fails on first call, but succeeds on the other, then the
>> problem is likely somewhere else. But also on the second call we won't
>> do the memory touching. Can you try setting firstNumaTouch=false, so
>> that we do this on every call?
> 
> firstNumaTouch=false, it still fails on the first call.
> 
> I assume you meant actually keeping firstNumaTouch=true - but it still
> fails on the first call.
> 

No, I meant firstNumaTouch=false, so that the touching happens on every
call. I was wondering if that makes all calls fail.

> The memory touching is done for the first call in each backend, but
> reconnecting doesn't reset it, I have to restart PG.
> 

I don't follow. Why wouldn't reconnecting reset it?

>> At the beginning you mentioned this is happening on i386, armel and
>> armhf - are all those in qemu? I've tried on my rpi5 (with 32-bit user
>> space), and there everything seems to work fine. But that's aarch64
>> kernel, just the user space if 32-bit.
> 
> I'm testing on i386 in a chroot on a amd64 kernel. (same for x32)
> armel and armhf are also 32-bit chroots on a arm64 host.
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=postgresql-18&suite=experimental
> 
> Maybe this is a kernel bug.
> 

Or maybe the 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host matters and confuses some
calculation.


-- 
Tomas Vondra