Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> Monday 21 March 2011 20:58:16 > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can't you make just one large mapping and lock it in 8k regions? I > >> thought the problem with mmap was not being able to detect other > >> processes > >> (http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg122301.htm > >> l) compatibility issues (possibly obsolete), etc. > > > > I was assuming that locking part of a mapping would force the kernel > > to split the mapping. It has to record the locked state somewhere so > > it needs a data structure that represents the size of the locked > > section and that would, I assume, be the mapping. > > > > It's possible the kernel would not in fact fall over too badly doing > > this. At some point I'll go ahead and do experiments on it. It's a bit > > fraught though as it the performance may depend on the memory > > management features of the chipset. > > > > That said, that's only part of the battle. On 32bit you can't map the > > whole database as your database could easily be larger than your > > address space. I have some ideas on how to tackle that but the > > simplest test would be to just mmap 8kB chunks everywhere. > > Even on 64 bit systems you only have 48 bit address space which is not > a theoretical limitation. However, at least on linux you can map in > and map out pretty quick (10 microseconds paired on my linux vm) so > that's not so big of a deal. Dealing with rapidly growing files is a > problem. That said, probably you are not going to want to reserve > multiple gigabytes in 8k non contiguous chunks. > > > But it's worse than that. Since you're not responsible for flushing > > blocks to disk any longer you need some way to *unlock* a block when > > it's possible to be flushed. That means when you flush the xlog you > > have to somehow find all the blocks that might no longer need to be > > locked and atomically unlock them. That would require new > > infrastructure we don't have though it might not be too hard. > > > > What would be nice is a mlock_until() where you eventually issue a > > call to tell the kernel what point in time you've reached and it > > unlocks everything older than that time. > > I wonder if there is any reason to mlock at all...if you are going to > 'do' mmap, can't you just hide under current lock architecture for > actual locking and do direct memory access without mlock? > > merlin
Actually after dealing with mmap and adding munmap I found crucial thing why to not use mmap: You need to munmap, and for me this takes much time, even if I read with SHARED | PROT_READ, it's looks like Linux do flush or something else, same as with MAP_FIXED, MAP_PRIVATE, etc. Regards, Radek -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
