public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Zhou, Zhiguo <[email protected]>
To: wenhui qiu <[email protected]>
To: Yura Sokolov <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 14:46:03 +0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGjGUAJbWgv5BB8-zm+6McUw7OqJ3paDv5CqeppTgXZk6OHF-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <PH7PR11MB5796659F654F9BE983F3AD97EF142@PH7PR11MB5796.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAGjGUAJbWgv5BB8-zm+6McUw7OqJ3paDv5CqeppTgXZk6OHF-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Yura and Wenhui,

Thanks for kindly reviewing this work!

On 1/3/2025 9:01 PM, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Hi
>      Thank you for your path，NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS increase to 128，I 
> think it will be challenged，do we make it guc ？
> 

I noticed there have been some discussions (for example, [1] and its 
responses) about making NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS a GUC, which seems to be a 
controversial proposal. Given that, we may first focus on the lock-free 
XLog reservation implementation, and leave the increase of 
NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS for a future patch, where we would provide more 
quantitative evidence for the various implementations. WDYT?


> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 at 20:36, Yura Sokolov <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Good day, Zhiguo.
> 
>     Idea looks great.
> 
>     Minor issue:
>     - you didn't remove use of `insertpos_lck` from `ReserveXLogSwitch`.
> 
>     I initially thought it became un-synchronized against
>     `ReserveXLogInsertLocation`, but looking closer I found it is
>     synchronized with `WALInsertLockAcquireExclusive`.
>     Since there are no other `insertpos_lck` usages after your patch, I
>     don't see why it should exists and be used in `ReserveXLogSwitch`.
> 
>     Still I'd prefer to see CAS loop in this place to be consistent with
>     other non-locking access. And it will allow to get rid of
>     `WALInsertLockAcquireExclusive`, (though probably it is not a big
>     issue).
> 

Exactly, it should be safe to remove `insertpos_lck`. And I agree with 
you on getting rid of `WALInsertLockAcquireExclusive` with CAS loop 
which should significantly reduce the synchronization cost here 
especially when we intend to increase NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS. I will try 
it in the next version of patch.


>     Major issue:
>     - `SetPrevRecPtr` and `GetPrevRecPtr` do non-atomic write/read with on
>     platforms where MAXALIGN != 8 or without native 64 load/store. Branch
>     with 'memcpy` is rather obvious, but even pointer de-referencing on
>     "lucky case" is not safe either.
> 
>     I have no idea how to fix it at the moment.
> 

Indeed, non-atomic write/read operations can lead to safety issues in 
some situations. My initial thought is to define a bit near the 
prev-link to flag the completion of the update. In this way, we could 
allow non-atomic or even discontinuous write/read operations on the 
prev-link, while simultaneously guaranteeing its atomicity through 
atomic operations (as well as memory barriers) on the flag bit. What do 
you think of this as a viable solution?


>     Readability issue:
>     - It would be good to add `Assert(ptr >= upto)` into `GetXLogBuffer`.
>     I had hard time to recognize `upto` is strictly not in the future.
>     - Certainly, final version have to have fixed and improved comments.
>     Many patch's ideas are strictly non-obvious. I had hard time to
>     recognize patch is not a piece of ... (excuse me for the swear
>     sentence).

Thanks for the suggestion and patience. It's really more readable after 
inserting the assertion, I will fix it and improve other comments in the 
following patches.


>     Indeed, patch is much better than it looks on first sight.
>     I came with alternative idea yesterday, but looking closer to your
>     patch
>     today I see it is superior to mine (if atomic access will be fixed).
> 
>     ----
> 
>     regards,
>     Yura Sokolov aka funny-falcon
> 
> 

Regards,
Zhiguo


[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2266698.1704854297%40sss.pgh.pa.us

view thread (6+ messages)  latest in thread

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]
  Subject: Re: [RFC] Lock-free XLog Reservation from WAL
  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