Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > On 28.09.2016 23:39, Thomas Munro wrote: >> It's difficult to draw any conclusions at this point. > > I'm currently setting up a new FreeBSD machine. Its a FreeBSD 11 with ZFS, > 64 GB RAM and Quad Core.

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 28.09.2016 23:39, Thomas Munro wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: Ok, here's a version tweaked to use EVFILT_PROC for postmaster death detection instead of the

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> Ok, here's a version tweaked to use EVFILT_PROC for postmaster death >> detection instead of the pipe, as Tom Lane suggested in

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Thomas Munro < thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > >> Thomas Munro brought up in #postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Hi, On 16/09/2016 05:11, Thomas Munro wrote: Still no change measurable on my laptop. Keith, would you be able to test this on your rig and see if it sucks any less than the last one? I've tested kqueue-v6.patch on the Celeron NetBSD machine and numbers were constantly lower by about 5-10%

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: >> Thomas Munro brought up in #postgresql on freenode needing someone to test a >> patch on a larger FreeBSD server. I've got a pretty

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Keith Fiske wrote: > Thomas Munro brought up in #postgresql on freenode needing someone to test a > patch on a larger FreeBSD server. I've got a pretty decent machine (3.1Ghz > Quad Core Xeon E3-1220V3, 16GB ECC RAM, ZFS mirror on WD Red HDD) so

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Matteo Beccati wrote: > Hi, > > On 14/09/2016 00:06, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm inclined to think the kqueue patch is worth applying just on the >> grounds that it makes things better on OS X and doesn't seem to hurt >> on FreeBSD. Whether anyone

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Hi, On 14/09/2016 00:06, Tom Lane wrote: I'm inclined to think the kqueue patch is worth applying just on the grounds that it makes things better on OS X and doesn't seem to hurt on FreeBSD. Whether anyone would ever get to the point of seeing intra-kernel contention on these platforms is hard

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> From an OSX laptop with -S, -c 1 and -M prepared (9 runs, removed the >> three best and three worst): >> - HEAD: 9356/9343/9369 >> - HEAD + patch: 9433/9413/9461.071168 >>

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Michael Paquier writes: > From an OSX laptop with -S, -c 1 and -M prepared (9 runs, removed the > three best and three worst): > - HEAD: 9356/9343/9369 > - HEAD + patch: 9433/9413/9461.071168 > This laptop has a lot of I/O overhead... Still there is a slight >

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > It would be good for someone else to reproduce my results though. > For one thing, 5%-ish is not that far above the noise level; maybe > what I'm measuring here is just good luck from relocation of critical > loops into more

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> At -j 10 -c 10, all else the same, I get 84928 TPS on HEAD and 90357 >> with the patch, so about 6% better. > > And at -j 1 -c 1, I get 22390 and 24040 TPS, or about 7% better with > the patch. So what I am

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

I wrote: > At -j 10 -c 10, all else the same, I get 84928 TPS on HEAD and 90357 > with the patch, so about 6% better. And at -j 1 -c 1, I get 22390 and 24040 TPS, or about 7% better with the patch. So what I am seeing on OS X isn't contention of any sort, but just a straight speedup that's

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-13 15:37:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> (It's a 4-core CPU so I saw little point in pressing harder than >> that.) > I think in reality most busy machines, were performance and scalability > matter, are overcommitted in the number of

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-09-13 15:37:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-13 14:47:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Also I notice that the WaitEventSet thread started with a simple > >> pgbench test, so I don't really buy the claim that that's not a > >> way that will

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-13 14:47:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Also I notice that the WaitEventSet thread started with a simple >> pgbench test, so I don't really buy the claim that that's not a >> way that will reach the problem. > You can reach it, but not when

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-13 12:43:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, if it's only a win on machines with dozens of CPUs, how many >> people are running *BSD on that kind of iron? I think Linux is by >> far the dominant kernel for such hardware. For sure Apple isn't

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-09-13 14:47:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Also I notice that the WaitEventSet thread started with a simple > pgbench test, so I don't really buy the claim that that's not a > way that will reach the problem. You can reach it, but not when using 1 core:one pgbench thread:one client

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-09-13 12:43:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think it's not necessarily about the current system, but more about > > future uses of the WaitEventSet stuff. Some of that is going to use a > > lot more sockets. E.g. doing a parallel append over FDWs. (note that I'm talking about network

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-13 16:08:39 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve >> performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most >> notably, FreeBSD? > I think it's not

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 08:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve >> performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue()

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 13 September 2016 at 08:08, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve > performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most > notably, FreeBSD? I'm getting a little fried from "self-documenting"

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Hi, On 2016-09-13 16:08:39 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve > performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most > notably, FreeBSD? I think it's not necessarily about the current system, but more

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 09/13/2016 04:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most notably, FreeBSD? OS X also has this, so it might be worth

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to > improve performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() > function. Most notably, FreeBSD? OS X also has this, so it might be worth trying on a multi-CPU Mac. > If

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most notably, FreeBSD? I launched a FreeBSD 10.3 instance on Amazon EC2 (ami-e0682b80), on a m4.10xlarge instance. That's a 40 core system, biggest

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > I've tested and reviewed this, and it looks good to me, other than this > part: > > + /* > +* kevent guarantees that the change list has been processed in the > EINTR > +* case. Here we are only applying a change

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-06-03 01:45, Thomas Munro wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: pg_strtoi? I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then? I'd go with just

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >> >> pg_strtoi? >> >> > I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then? >> >> I'd go with just "strtoint". We have "strtoint64"

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > >> pg_strtoi? > > > I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then? > > I'd go with just "strtoint". We have "strtoint64" elsewhere. For closure of this subthread: this rename was committed by Tom as

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Andres Freund writes: >> pg_strtoi? > I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then? I'd go with just "strtoint". We have "strtoint64" elsewhere. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Thomas Munro writes: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >>> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually >>> build on recent NetBSD systems because

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-04-22 19:25:06 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Since we haven't, maybe nobody cares, so why should we? I guess it's to a good degree because netbsd has pg packages, and it's fixed there? > would rename our function nonetheless FWIW; the name seems far too > generic to me. Yea. >

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-04-23 10:12:12 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone > cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal? I think we should fix it, I just want to make sure we understand why the error is appearing now. Since we now

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually > >> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi >

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually >> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi >> clashes with a non-standard

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > I vote to leave this patch in the next commitfest where it is, and > reconsider if someone shows up with a relevant problem report on large > systems. Sounds good! > Here's a new version of the patch that fixes some stupid bugs. I have > run

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-21 14:25:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM,

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-04-21 14:25:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro > >> wrote: > >> > On the

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro > >> wrote: > >> > On the WaitEventSet thread I posted a small

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >> > On the WaitEventSet thread I posted a small patch to add kqueue >> >

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On 2016-04-21 14:15:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > On the WaitEventSet thread I posted a small patch to add kqueue > > support[1]. Since then I peeked at how some other software[2] > > interacts with kqueue

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On the WaitEventSet thread I posted a small patch to add kqueue > support[1]. Since then I peeked at how some other software[2] > interacts with kqueue and discovered that there are platforms > including NetBSD

[HACKERS] kqueue

Hi, On the WaitEventSet thread I posted a small patch to add kqueue support[1]. Since then I peeked at how some other software[2] interacts with kqueue and discovered that there are platforms including NetBSD where kevent.udata is an intptr_t instead of a void *. Here's a version which should