From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com, john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Improve logging when using Huge Pages |
Date: | 2023-06-13 05:50:30 |
Message-ID: | ZIgDpuAaHvm7+e/7@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 02:37:15PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Fair enough. I know I've been waffling in the GUC versus function
> discussion, but FWIW v7 of the patch looks reasonable to me.
+ Assert(strcmp("unknown", GetConfigOption("huge_pages_status", false, false)) != 0);
Not sure that there is anything to gain with this assertion in
CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores(), because this is pretty much what
check_GUC_init() looks after?
@@ -627,6 +627,9 @@ CreateAnonymousSegment(Size *size)
}
#endif
+ SetConfigOption("huge_pages_status", ptr == MAP_FAILED ? "off" : "on",
+ PGC_INTERNAL, PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT);
The choice of this location is critical, because this is just *after*
we've tried huge pages, but *before* doing the fallback mmap() call
when the huge page allocation was on "try". I think that this
deserves a comment.
@@ -327,6 +327,10 @@ retry:
Sleep(1000);
continue;
}
+
+ SetConfigOption("huge_pages_status", (flProtect & SEC_LARGE_PAGES) ?
+ "on" : "off", PGC_INTERNAL, PGC_S_DYNAMIC_DEFAULT);
Hmm. I still think that it is cleaner to move that at the end of
PGSharedMemoryCreate() for the WIN32 case. There are also few FATALs
in-between, which would make SetConfigOption() useless if there is an
in-flight problem.
Don't we need to update save_backend_variables() and add an entry
in BackendParameters to make other processes launched by EXEC_BACKEND
inherit the status value set?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2023-06-13 05:51:24 | Re: Avoid unncessary always true test (src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c) |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2023-06-13 05:46:57 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |