Message-ID: <c1715ad78880399140f7a1ff9b11b80fd9b5856f.camel@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks
From: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, michail.nikolaev@gmail.com,
  x4mmm@yandex-team.ru, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:51:22 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20220225080455.3zzxwfpvbizzcsfo@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: 
	<CANtu0ohTqkVYCFyHRM6uG=jO=j_9MkQMrh04YPVt57rL5sTykA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CANtu0ogqNyceN0WCS186OnBLhw71xzwGDUw+Yk3Qt4J9TcM_mg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3b108afd19fa52ed20c464a69f64d545e4a14772.camel@postgrespro.ru>
	 <20220217.141647.512059035403445205.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	 <1a97e80353d6855e9217cd6e2052257190a98f2d.camel@postgrespro.ru>
	 <20220225080455.3zzxwfpvbizzcsfo@alap3.anarazel.de>
Organization: PostgresPro
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c1715ad78880399140f7a1ff9b11b80fd9b5856f.camel%40postgrespro.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Andres

В Пт, 25/02/2022 в 00:04 -0800, Andres Freund пишет:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-02-21 11:06:49 +0300, Yura Sokolov wrote:
> > From 04b07d0627ec65ba3327dc8338d59dbd15c405d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:49:03 +0300
> > Subject: [PATCH v3] [PGPRO-5616] bufmgr: do not acquire two partition locks.
> > 
> > Acquiring two partition locks leads to complex dependency chain that hurts
> > at high concurrency level.
> > 
> > There is no need to hold both lock simultaneously. Buffer is pinned so
> > other processes could not select it for eviction. If tag is cleared and
> > buffer removed from old partition other processes will not find it.
> > Therefore it is safe to release old partition lock before acquiring
> > new partition lock.
> 
> Yes, the current design is pretty nonsensical. It leads to really absurd stuff
> like holding the relation extension lock while we write out old buffer
> contents etc.
> 
> 
> 
> > +	 * We have pinned buffer and we are single pinner at the moment so there
> > +	 * is no other pinners.
> 
> Seems redundant.
> 
> 
> > We hold buffer header lock and exclusive partition
> > +	 * lock if tag is valid. Given these statements it is safe to clear tag
> > +	 * since no other process can inspect it to the moment.
> > +	 */
> 
> Could we share code with InvalidateBuffer here? It's not quite the same code,
> but nearly the same.
> 
> 
> > +	 * The usage_count starts out at 1 so that the buffer can survive one
> > +	 * clock-sweep pass.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * We use direct atomic OR instead of Lock+Unlock since no other backend
> > +	 * could be interested in the buffer. But StrategyGetBuffer,
> > +	 * Flush*Buffers, Drop*Buffers are scanning all buffers and locks them to
> > +	 * compare tag, and UnlockBufHdr does raw write to state. So we have to
> > +	 * spin if we found buffer locked.
> 
> So basically the first half of of the paragraph is wrong, because no, we
> can't?

Logically, there are no backends that could be interesting in the buffer.
Physically they do LockBufHdr/UnlockBufHdr just to check they are not interesting.

> > +	 * Note that we write tag unlocked. It is also safe since there is always
> > +	 * check for BM_VALID when tag is compared.
> 
> 
> >  	 */
> >  	buf->tag = newTag;
> > -	buf_state &= ~(BM_VALID | BM_DIRTY | BM_JUST_DIRTIED |
> > -				   BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED | BM_IO_ERROR | BM_PERMANENT |
> > -				   BUF_USAGECOUNT_MASK);
> >  	if (relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT || forkNum == INIT_FORKNUM)
> > -		buf_state |= BM_TAG_VALID | BM_PERMANENT | BUF_USAGECOUNT_ONE;
> > +		new_bits = BM_TAG_VALID | BM_PERMANENT | BUF_USAGECOUNT_ONE;
> >  	else
> > -		buf_state |= BM_TAG_VALID | BUF_USAGECOUNT_ONE;
> > -
> > -	UnlockBufHdr(buf, buf_state);
> > +		new_bits = BM_TAG_VALID | BUF_USAGECOUNT_ONE;
> >  
> > -	if (oldPartitionLock != NULL)
> > +	buf_state = pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(&buf->state, new_bits);
> > +	while (unlikely(buf_state & BM_LOCKED))
> 
> I don't think it's safe to atomic in arbitrary bits. If somebody else has
> locked the buffer header in this moment, it'll lead to completely bogus
> results, because unlocking overwrites concurrently written contents (which
> there shouldn't be any, but here there are)...

That is why there is safety loop in the case buf->state were locked just
after first optimistic atomic_fetch_or. 99.999% times this loop will not
have a job. But in case other backend did lock buf->state, loop waits
until it releases lock and retry atomic_fetch_or.

> And or'ing contents in also doesn't make sense because we it doesn't work to
> actually unset any contents?

Sorry, I didn't understand sentence :((

> Why don't you just use LockBufHdr/UnlockBufHdr?

This pair makes two atomic writes to memory. Two writes are heavier than
one write in this version (if optimistic case succeed).

But I thought to use Lock+UnlockBuhHdr instead of safety loop:

    buf_state = pg_atomic_fetch_or_u32(&buf->state, new_bits);
    if (unlikely(buf_state & BM_LOCKED))
    {
        buf_state = LockBufHdr(&buf->state);
        UnlockBufHdr(&buf->state, buf_state | new_bits);
    }

I agree this way code is cleaner. Will do in next version.

-----

regards,
Yura Sokolov