From: | John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |
Date: | 2016-10-04 19:44:27 |
Message-ID: | CALkS6B8hisTEJJ7ZCQ_GiBLNVzKfsevAD+92rYN6myyFK=UQtw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
SlabContext has a parent context. It can delegate requests that
it cannot handle to the parent context which is GenSlab. Genslab
can send them to the sister aset context.
This could handle all reallocs so there will be no surprises.
Remind me again why we cannot realloc in place for sizes
smaller than chunkSize? GenSlab is happy to allocate smaller
sizes and put them into the fixed size chunks.
Maybe SlabAlloc can be happy with sizes up to chunkSize.
if (size <= set->chunkSize)
return MemoryContextAlloc(set->slab, size);
else
return MemoryContextAlloc(set->aset, size);
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 10/02/2016 12:23 AM, John Gorman wrote:
>
>> I reproduced the quadradic pfree performance problem and verified that
>> these patches solved it.
>>
>> The slab.c data structures and functions contain no quadradic components.
>>
>> I noticed the sizing loop in SlabContextCreate() and came up with
>> a similar formula to determine chunksPerBlock that you arrived at.
>>
>> Firstly, I've realized there's an issue when chunkSize gets too
>>> large - once it exceeds blockSize, the SlabContextCreate() fails
>>> as it's impossible to place a single chunk into the block. In
>>> reorderbuffer, this may happen when the tuples (allocated in
>>> tup_context) get larger than 8MB, as the context uses
>>> SLAB_LARGE_BLOCK_SIZE (which is 8MB).
>>>
>>> But maybe there's a simpler solution - we may simply cap the
>>> chunkSize (in GenSlab) to ALLOC_CHUNK_LIMIT. That's fine, because
>>> AllocSet handles those requests in a special way - for example
>>> instead of tracking them in freelist, those chunks got freed
>>> immediately.
>>>
>>
>> I like this approach because it fixes the performance problems
>> with smaller allocations and doesn't change how larger
>> allocations are handled.
>>
>>
> One more comment about GenSlab, particularly about unpredictability of the
> repalloc() behavior. It works for "large" chunks allocated in the AllocSet
> part, and mostly does not work for "small" chunks allocated in the
> SlabContext. Moreover, the chunkSize changes over time, so for two chunks
> of the same size, repalloc() may work on one of them and fail on the other,
> depending on time of allocation.
>
> With SlabContext it's perfectly predictable - repalloc() call fails unless
> the chunk size is exactly the same as before (which is perhaps a bit
> pointless, but if we decide to fail even in this case it'll work 100% time).
>
> But with GenSlabContext it's unclear whether the call fails or not.
>
> I don't like this unpredictability - I'd much rather have consistent
> failures (making sure people don't do repalloc() on with GenSlab). But I
> don't see a nice way to achieve that - the repalloc() call does not go
> through GenSlabRealloc() at all, but directly to SlabRealloc() or
> AllocSetRealloc().
>
> The best solution I can think of is adding an alternate version of
> AllocSetMethods, pointing to a different AllocSetReset implementation.
>
>
> regards
>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-04 19:49:34 | Re: Misidentification of Python shared library |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-04 19:38:34 | Re: Misidentification of Python shared library |