public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Li Japin <[email protected]>
Cc: wenhui qiu <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:56:58 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CAGjGUAKk7tkw2en37EwPkXk1guLe=bLsrMizW-5LMLtH+12dwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGjGUAKeTV2SUmWO90dqZgQjpqYUEMOL1==1fDVFc=+6ZJ8hhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 2/18/24 03:30, Li Japin wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2024, at 20:15, Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/8/24 14:27, wenhui qiu wrote:
>>> Hi Heikki Linnakangas
>>>    I think the larger shared buffer  higher the probability of multiple
>>> backend processes accessing the same bucket slot BufMappingLock
>>> simultaneously, （   InitBufTable(NBuffers + NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS); When I
>>> have free time, I want to do this test. I have seen some tests, but the
>>> result report is in Chinese
>>>
>>
>> I think Heikki is right this is unrelated to the amount of RAM. The
>> partitions are meant to reduce the number of lock collisions when
>> multiple processes try to map a buffer concurrently. But the machines
>> got much larger in this regard too - in 2006 the common CPUs had maybe
>> 2-4 cores, now it's common to have CPUs with ~100 cores, and systems
>> with multiple of them. OTOH the time spent holing the partition lock
>> should be pretty low, IIRC we pretty much just pin the buffer before
>> releasing it, and the backend should do plenty other expensive stuff. So
>> who knows how many backends end up doing the locking at the same time.
>>
>> OTOH, with 128 partitions it takes just 14 backends to have 50% chance
>> of a conflict, so with enough cores ... But how many partitions would be
>> enough? With 1024 partitions it still takes only 38 backends to get 50%
>> chance of a collision. Better, but considering we now have hundreds of
>> cores, not sure if sufficient.
>>
>> (Obviously, we probably want much lower probability of a collision, I
>> only used 50% to illustrate the changes).
>>
> 
> I find it seems need to change MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS if we enlarge the NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS,
> I didn’t find any comments to describe the relation between MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS and
> NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, am I missing someghing?

IMHO the relationship is pretty simple - MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS needs to be
higher than NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, so that the backend can acquire all
the partition locks if needed.

There's other places that acquire a bunch of locks, and all of them need
to be careful not to exceed MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS. For example gist has
GIST_MAX_SPLIT_PAGES.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

view thread (3+ messages)

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox