Re: Way to check whether a particular block is on the shared_buffer?

From: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Way to check whether a particular block is on the shared_buffer?
Date: 2016-02-02 06:55:47
Message-ID: 9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F8011A52C0@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> KaiGai-san,
>
> On 2016/02/01 10:38, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
> > As an aside, background of my motivation is the slide below:
> > http://www.slideshare.net/kaigai/sqlgpussd-english
> > (LT slides in JPUG conference last Dec)
> >
> > I'm under investigation of SSD-to-GPU direct feature on top of
> > the custom-scan interface. It intends to load a bunch of data
> > blocks on NVMe-SSD to GPU RAM using P2P DMA, prior to the data
> > loading onto CPU/RAM, to preprocess the data to be filtered out.
> > It only makes sense if the target blocks are not loaded to the
> > CPU/RAM yet, because SSD device is essentially slower than RAM.
> > So, I like to have a reliable way to check the latest status of
> > the shared buffer, to kwon whether a particular block is already
> > loaded or not.
>
> Quite interesting stuff, thanks for sharing!
>
> I'm in no way expert on this but could this generally be attacked from the
> smgr API perspective? Currently, we have only one implementation - md.c
> (the hard-coded RelationData.smgr_which = 0). If we extended that and
> provided end-to-end support so that there would be md.c alternatives to
> storage operations, I guess that would open up opportunities for
> extensions to specify smgr_which as an argument to ReadBufferExtended(),
> provided there is already support in place to install md.c alternatives
> (perhaps in .so). Of course, these are just musings and, perhaps does not
> really concern the requirements of custom scan methods you have been
> developing.
>
Thanks for your idea. Indeed, smgr hooks are good candidate to implement
the feature, however, what I need is a thin intermediation layer rather
than alternative storage engine.

It becomes clear we need two features here.
1. A feature to check whether a particular block is already on the shared
buffer pool.
It is available. BufTableLookup() under the BufMappingPartitionLock
gives us the information we want.

2. A feature to suspend i/o write-out towards a particular blocks
that are registered by other concurrent backend, unless it is not
unregistered (usually, at the end of P2P DMA).
==> to be discussed.

When we call smgrwrite(), like FlushBuffer(), it fetches function pointer
from the 'smgrsw' array, then calls smgr_write.

void
smgrwrite(SMgrRelation reln, ForkNumber forknum, BlockNumber blocknum,
char *buffer, bool skipFsync)
{
(*(smgrsw[reln->smgr_which].smgr_write)) (reln, forknum, blocknum,
buffer, skipFsync);
}

If extension would overwrite smgrsw[] array, then call the original
function under the control by extension, it allows to suspend the call
of the original smgr_write until completion of P2P DMA.

It may be a minimum invasive way to implement, and portable to any
further storage layers.

How about your thought? Even though it is a bit different from your
original proposition.
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-02-02 07:18:37 Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-02-02 06:34:26 Re: PostgreSQL Audit Extension