From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Dynamic shared memory areas |
Date: | 2016-11-25 12:48:56 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=3AGXBu4VO0_QZS0+-X3A_p-PM1DDtVoM1D_Ognd0WUoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The attached patch is just for discussion only... I need to resolve
> that contiguous_pages question and do some more testing.
As Dilip discovered, there was a problem with resource cleanup for DSA
areas created inside pre-existing DSM segments, which I've now sorted
out in the attached version. I also updated the copyright messages,
introduced a couple of the new 'unlikely' macros in the address
decoding path, and introduced high_segment_index to avoid scanning
bigger segment arrays than is necessary sometimes.
As for contiguous_pages_dirty, I see what was missing from earlier
attempts at more subtle invalidation: we had failed to set the flag in
cases where FreePageManagerGetInternal was called during a
FreePageManagerPut operation. What do you think about the logic in
this patch... do you see any ways for contiguous_pages to get out of
date? There is a new assertion that contiguous_pages matches the
state of the freelists at the end of FreePageManagerGet and
FreePageManagerPut, enabled if you defined FPM_EXTRA_ASSERTS, and this
passes my random allocation pattern testing.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
dsa-v7.patch | application/octet-stream | 137.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-11-25 12:55:12 | Re: Creating a DSA area to provide work space for parallel execution |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-11-25 12:44:04 | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after |