Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2017-06-22 Thread Thomas Munro
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. If you're interested in i can give you access for
> more tests this week. Maybe this will help to draw any conclusion.

I don't plan to resubmit this patch myself, but I was doing some
spring cleaning and rebasing today and I figured it might be worth
quietly leaving a working patch here just in case anyone from the
various BSD communities is interested in taking the idea further.

Some thoughts:  We could decide to make it the default on FooBSD but
not BarBSD according to experimental results... for example several
people reported that macOS developer machines run pgbench a bit
faster.  Also, we didn't ever get to the bottom of the complaint that
NetBSD and OpenBSD systems wake up every waiting backend when anyone
calls PostmasterIsAlive[1], which this patch should in theory fix (by
using EVFILT_PROC instead of waiting on that pipe).  On the other
hand, the fix for that may be to stop calling PostmasterIsAlive in
loops[2]!

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D27K-2AP1th97kiVvKpTuria9ocbjT0cXCJqnt4if5rJQ%40mail.gmail.com
[2] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D3FW33PeRxt0jE4N0truJqOepp72R6W-zyM5mu1bxnZRw%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


kqueue-v7.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-10-11 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff

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 pipe, as Tom Lane suggested in another
thread[1].

[...]


Ran benchmarks on unaltered 96rc1 again just to be safe. Those are first.
Decided to throw a 32 process test in there as well to see if there's
anything going on between 4 and 64


Thanks!  A summary:

[summary]

The variation in the patched 64 client numbers is quite large, ranging
from ~66.5k to ~79.5k.  The highest number matched the unpatched
numbers which ranged 77.9k to 80k.  I wonder if that is noise and we
need to run longer (in which case the best outcome might be 'this
patch is neutral on FreeBSD'), or if something the patch does is doing
is causing that (for example maybe EVFILT_PROC proc filters causes
contention on the process table lock).

[..]

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. If you're interested in i can give you 
access for more tests this week. Maybe this will help to draw any 
conclusion.


Greetings,
Torsten


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-28 Thread Thomas Munro
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 another
>> thread[1].
>>
>> [...]
>
> Ran benchmarks on unaltered 96rc1 again just to be safe. Those are first.
> Decided to throw a 32 process test in there as well to see if there's
> anything going on between 4 and 64

Thanks!  A summary:

┌──┬─┬───┬┬───┐
│   code   │ clients │  average  │ standard_deviation │  median   │
├──┼─┼───┼┼───┤
│ 9.6rc1   │   1 │ 25704.923 │108.766 │ 25731.006 │
│ 9.6rc1   │   4 │ 94032.889 │322.562 │ 94123.436 │
│ 9.6rc1   │  32 │ 86647.401 │ 33.616 │ 86664.849 │
│ 9.6rc1   │  64 │ 79360.680 │   1217.453 │ 79941.243 │
│ 9.6rc1/kqueue-v6 │   1 │ 24569.683 │   1433.339 │ 25146.434 │
│ 9.6rc1/kqueue-v6 │   4 │ 93435.450 │ 50.214 │ 93442.716 │
│ 9.6rc1/kqueue-v6 │  32 │ 88000.328 │135.143 │ 87891.856 │
│ 9.6rc1/kqueue-v6 │  64 │ 71726.034 │   4784.794 │ 72271.146 │
└──┴─┴───┴┴───┘

┌─┬───┬───┬──┐
│ clients │ unpatched │  patched  │  percent_change  │
├─┼───┼───┼──┤
│   1 │ 25731.006 │ 25146.434 │ -2.271858317548874692000 │
│   4 │ 94123.436 │ 93442.716 │ -0.72322051651408051 │
│  32 │ 86664.849 │ 87891.856 │  1.415807001521458833000 │
│  64 │ 79941.243 │ 72271.146 │ -9.594668173973727179000 │
└─┴───┴───┴──┘

The variation in the patched 64 client numbers is quite large, ranging
from ~66.5k to ~79.5k.  The highest number matched the unpatched
numbers which ranged 77.9k to 80k.  I wonder if that is noise and we
need to run longer (in which case the best outcome might be 'this
patch is neutral on FreeBSD'), or if something the patch does is doing
is causing that (for example maybe EVFILT_PROC proc filters causes
contention on the process table lock).

Matteo's results with the v6 patch on a low end NetBSD machine were
not good.  But the report at [1] implies that larger NetBSD and
OpenBSD systems have terrible problems with the
poll-postmaster-alive-pipe approach, which this EVFILT_PROC approach
would seem to address pretty well.

It's difficult to draw any conclusions at this point.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160915135755.GC19008%40genua.de

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-28 Thread Keith Fiske
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 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
> offered
> >> to give it a try.
> >>
> >> Bench setup was:
> >> pgbench -i -s 100 -d postgres
> >>
> >> I ran this against 96rc1 instead of HEAD like most of the others in this
> >> thread seem to have done. Not sure if that makes a difference and can
> re-run
> >> if needed.
> >> With higher concurrency, this seems to cause decreased performance. You
> can
> >> tell which of the runs is the kqueue patch by looking at the path to
> >> pgbench.
> >
> > Thanks Keith.  So to summarise, you saw no change with 1 client, but
> > with 4 clients you saw a significant drop in performance (~93K TPS ->
> > ~80K TPS), and a smaller drop for 64 clients (~72 TPS -> ~68K TPS).
> > These results seem to be a nail in the coffin for this patch for now.
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who tested.  I might be back in a later commitfest
> > if I can figure out why and how to fix it.
>
> Ok, here's a version tweaked to use EVFILT_PROC for postmaster death
> detection instead of the pipe, as Tom Lane suggested in another
> thread[1].
>
> The pipe still exists and is used for PostmasterIsAlive(), and also
> for the race case where kevent discovers that the PID doesn't exist
> when you try to add it (presumably it died already, but we want to
> defer the report of that until you call EventSetWait, so in that case
> we stick the traditional pipe into the kqueue set as before so that
> it'll fire a readable-because-EOF event then).
>
> 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?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13774.1473972000%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> --
> Thomas Munro
> http://www.enterprisedb.com
>


Ran benchmarks on unaltered 96rc1 again just to be safe. Those are first.
Decided to throw a 32 process test in there as well to see if there's
anything going on between 4 and 64

~/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -i -s 100 -d pgbench -p 5496

[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1 -c 1 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1543809
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25729.749474 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25731.006414 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1 -c 1 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1548340
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25796.928387 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25798.275891 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1 -c 1 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1535072
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25584.182830 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25585.487246 (excluding connections establishing)

[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 4
number of threads: 4
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 5621013
latency average: 0.043 ms
tps = 93668.594248 (including connections establishing)
tps = 93674.730914 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 4
number of threads: 4
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 5659929
latency average: 0.042 ms
tps = 94293.572928 (including connections establishing)
tps = 94300.500395 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus ~]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M
prepared -S -p 5496 pgbench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 4
number of threads: 4
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 5649572
latency average: 0.042 ms
tps = 94115.854165 (including connections establishing)
tps = 94123.436211 (excluding connections 

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-20 Thread Matteo Beccati

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% vs fairly recent HEAD (same as my 
last pgbench runs).



Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-15 Thread Thomas Munro
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 decent machine (3.1Ghz
>> Quad Core Xeon E3-1220V3, 16GB ECC RAM, ZFS mirror on WD Red HDD) so offered
>> to give it a try.
>>
>> Bench setup was:
>> pgbench -i -s 100 -d postgres
>>
>> I ran this against 96rc1 instead of HEAD like most of the others in this
>> thread seem to have done. Not sure if that makes a difference and can re-run
>> if needed.
>> With higher concurrency, this seems to cause decreased performance. You can
>> tell which of the runs is the kqueue patch by looking at the path to
>> pgbench.
>
> Thanks Keith.  So to summarise, you saw no change with 1 client, but
> with 4 clients you saw a significant drop in performance (~93K TPS ->
> ~80K TPS), and a smaller drop for 64 clients (~72 TPS -> ~68K TPS).
> These results seem to be a nail in the coffin for this patch for now.
>
> Thanks to everyone who tested.  I might be back in a later commitfest
> if I can figure out why and how to fix it.

Ok, here's a version tweaked to use EVFILT_PROC for postmaster death
detection instead of the pipe, as Tom Lane suggested in another
thread[1].

The pipe still exists and is used for PostmasterIsAlive(), and also
for the race case where kevent discovers that the PID doesn't exist
when you try to add it (presumably it died already, but we want to
defer the report of that until you call EventSetWait, so in that case
we stick the traditional pipe into the kqueue set as before so that
it'll fire a readable-because-EOF event then).

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?

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/13774.1473972000%40sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


kqueue-v6.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-14 Thread Thomas Munro
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 offered
> to give it a try.
>
> Bench setup was:
> pgbench -i -s 100 -d postgres
>
> I ran this against 96rc1 instead of HEAD like most of the others in this
> thread seem to have done. Not sure if that makes a difference and can re-run
> if needed.
> With higher concurrency, this seems to cause decreased performance. You can
> tell which of the runs is the kqueue patch by looking at the path to
> pgbench.

Thanks Keith.  So to summarise, you saw no change with 1 client, but
with 4 clients you saw a significant drop in performance (~93K TPS ->
~80K TPS), and a smaller drop for 64 clients (~72 TPS -> ~68K TPS).
These results seem to be a nail in the coffin for this patch for now.

Thanks to everyone who tested.  I might be back in a later commitfest
if I can figure out why and how to fix it.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-14 Thread Keith Fiske
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 would ever get to the point of seeing
>> intra-kernel contention on these platforms is hard to predict, but
>> we'd be ahead of the curve if so.
>>
>> 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 cache-line-friendly locations.
>>
>
> FWIW, I've tested HEAD vs patch on a 2-cpu low end NetBSD 7.0 i386 machine.
>
> HEAD: 1890/1935/1889 tps
> kqueue: 1905/1957/1932 tps
>
> no weird surprises, and basically no differences either.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Matteo Beccati
>
> Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/



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 offered to give it a try.

Bench setup was:
pgbench -i -s 100 -d postgres

I ran this against 96rc1 instead of HEAD like most of the others in this
thread seem to have done. Not sure if that makes a difference and can
re-run if needed.
With higher concurrency, this seems to cause decreased performance. You can
tell which of the runs is the kqueue patch by looking at the path to
pgbench.

SINGLE PROCESS
[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1_kqueue/bin/pgbench -T
60 -j 1 -c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p
5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1547387
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25789.750236 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25791.018293 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1_kqueue/bin/pgbench -T
60 -j 1 -c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p 5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1549442
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25823.981255 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25825.189871 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1_kqueue/bin/pgbench -T
60 -j 1 -c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p 5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1547936
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25798.572583 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25799.917170 (excluding connections establishing)


[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1
-c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p
5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1520722
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25343.122533 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25344.357116 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1
-c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p 5496~
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1549282
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25821.107595 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25822.407310 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus /tank/pgdata]$ /home/keith/pgsql96rc1/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 1
-c 1 -M prepared -S postgres -p 5496~
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1541907
latency average: 0.039 ms
tps = 25698.025983 (including connections establishing)
tps = 25699.270663 (excluding connections establishing)


FOUR
/home/keith/pgsql96rc1_kqueue/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M prepared -S
postgres -p 5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 4
number of threads: 4
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 4282185
latency average: 0.056 ms
tps = 71369.146931 (including connections establishing)
tps = 71372.646243 (excluding connections establishing)
[keith@corpus ~/postgresql-9.6rc1_kqueue]$
/home/keith/pgsql96rc1_kqueue/bin/pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M prepared -S
postgres -p 5496
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 4
number of threads: 4
duration: 60 

Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-14 Thread Matteo Beccati

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 to predict, but
we'd be ahead of the curve if so.

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 cache-line-friendly locations.


FWIW, I've tested HEAD vs patch on a 2-cpu low end NetBSD 7.0 i386 machine.

HEAD: 1890/1935/1889 tps
kqueue: 1905/1957/1932 tps

no weird surprises, and basically no differences either.


Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati

Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-14 Thread Michael Paquier
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
>> This laptop has a lot of I/O overhead... Still there is a slight
>> improvement here as well. Looking at the progress report, per-second
>> TPS gets easier more frequently into 9500~9600 TPS with the patch. So
>> at least I am seeing something.
>
> Which OSX version exactly?

El Capitan 10.11.6. With -s 20 (300MB) and 1GB of shared_buffers so as
everything is on memory. Actually re-running the tests now with no VMs
around and no apps, I am getting close to 9650~9700TPS with patch, and
9300~9400TPS on HEAD, so that's unlikely only noise.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-14 Thread Tom Lane
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
> improvement here as well. Looking at the progress report, per-second
> TPS gets easier more frequently into 9500~9600 TPS with the patch. So
> at least I am seeing something.

Which OSX version exactly?

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Michael Paquier
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 cache-line-friendly locations.

>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
improvement here as well. Looking at the progress report, per-second
TPS gets easier more frequently into 9500~9600 TPS with the patch. So
at least I am seeing something.
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Thomas Munro
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 seeing on OS X isn't contention of any sort,
> but just a straight speedup that's independent of the number of clients
> (at least up to 10).  Probably this represents less setup/teardown cost
> for kqueue() waits than poll() waits.

Thanks for running all these tests.  I hadn't considered OS X performance.

> So you could spin this as "FreeBSD's poll() implementation is better than
> OS X's", or as "FreeBSD's kqueue() implementation is worse than OS X's",
> but either way I do not think we're seeing the same issue that was
> originally reported against Linux, where there was no visible problem at
> all till you got to a couple dozen clients, cf
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB-SwXbPmfpgL6N4Ro4BbGyqXEqqzx56intHHBCfvpbFUx1DNA%40mail.gmail.com
>
> 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 to predict, but
> we'd be ahead of the curve if so.

I was originally thinking of this as simply the obvious missing
implementation of Andres's WaitEventSet API which would surely pay off
later as we do more with that API (asynchronous execution with many
remote nodes for sharding, built-in connection pooling/admission
control for large numbers of sockets?, ...).  I wasn't really
expecting it to show performance increases in simple one or two
pipe/socket cases on small core count machines, and it's interesting
that it clearly does on OS X.

> 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 cache-line-friendly locations.

Similar results here on a 4 core 2.2GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro running OS
X 10.11.5.  With default settings except fsync = off, I ran pgbench -i
-s 100, then took the median result of three runs of pgbench -T 60 -j
4 -c 4 -M prepared -S.  I used two different compilers in case it
helps to see results with different random instruction cache effects,
and got the following numbers:

Apple clang 703.0.31: 51654 TPS -> 55739 TPS = 7.9% improvement
GCC 6.1.0 from MacPorts: 52552 TPS -> 55143 TPS = 4.9% improvement

I reran the tests under FreeBSD 10.3 on a 4 core laptop and again saw
absolutely no measurable difference at 1, 4 or 24 clients.  Maybe a
big enough server could be made to contend on the postmaster pipe's
selinfo->si_mtx, in selrecord(), in pipe_poll() -- maybe that'd be
directly equivalent to what happened on multi-socket Linux with
poll(), but I don't know.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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 independent of the number of clients
(at least up to 10).  Probably this represents less setup/teardown cost
for kqueue() waits than poll() waits.

So you could spin this as "FreeBSD's poll() implementation is better than
OS X's", or as "FreeBSD's kqueue() implementation is worse than OS X's",
but either way I do not think we're seeing the same issue that was
originally reported against Linux, where there was no visible problem at
all till you got to a couple dozen clients, cf

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB-SwXbPmfpgL6N4Ro4BbGyqXEqqzx56intHHBCfvpbFUx1DNA%40mail.gmail.com

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 to predict, but
we'd be ahead of the curve if so.

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 cache-line-friendly locations.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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 connections vs. cores.  And
> if you look at throughput graphs that makes sense; they tend to increase
> considerably after reaching #hardware-threads, even if all connections
> are full throttle busy.

At -j 10 -c 10, all else the same, I get 84928 TPS on HEAD and 90357
with the patch, so about 6% better.

>> So at this point I'm wondering why Thomas and Heikki could not measure
>> any win.  Based on my results it should be easy.  Is it possible that
>> OS X is better tuned for multi-CPU hardware than FreeBSD?

> Hah!

Well, there must be some reason why this patch improves matters on OS X
and not FreeBSD ...

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Andres Freund
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 reach the problem.
> 
> > You can reach it, but not when using 1 core:one pgbench thread:one
> > client connection, there need to be more connections than that. At least
> > that was my observation on x86 / linux.
> 
> Well, that original test was 
> 
> >> I tried to run pgbench -s 1000 -j 48 -c 48 -S -M prepared on 70 CPU-core
> >> machine:
> 
> so no, not 1 client ;-)

What I meant wasn't one client, but less than one client per cpu, and
using a pgbench thread per backend. That way usually, at least on linux,
there'll be a relatively small amount of poll/epoll/whatever, because
the recvmsg()s will always have data available.


> Anyway, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and run my own
> benchmark.

Cool.


> (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 connections vs. cores.  And
if you look at throughput graphs that makes sense; they tend to increase
considerably after reaching #hardware-threads, even if all connections
are full throttle busy.  It might not make sense if you just run large
analytics queries, or if you want the lowest latency possible, but in
everything else, the reality is that machines are often overcommitted
for good reason.


> So at this point I'm wondering why Thomas and Heikki could not measure
> any win.  Based on my results it should be easy.  Is it possible that
> OS X is better tuned for multi-CPU hardware than FreeBSD?

Hah!


Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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 using 1 core:one pgbench thread:one
> client connection, there need to be more connections than that. At least
> that was my observation on x86 / linux.

Well, that original test was 

>> I tried to run pgbench -s 1000 -j 48 -c 48 -S -M prepared on 70 CPU-core
>> machine:

so no, not 1 client ;-)

Anyway, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and run my own
benchmark.  On my couple-year-old Macbook Pro running OS X 10.11.6,
using a straight build of today's HEAD, asserts disabled, fsync off
but no other parameters changed, I did "pgbench -i -s 100" and then
did this a few times:
pgbench -T 60 -j 4 -c 4 -M prepared -S bench
(It's a 4-core CPU so I saw little point in pressing harder than
that.)  Median of 3 runs was 56028 TPS.  Repeating the runs with
kqueue-v5.patch applied, I got a median of 58975 TPS, or 5% better.
Run-to-run variation was only around 1% in each case.

So that's not a huge improvement, but it's clearly above the noise
floor, and this laptop is not what anyone would use for production
work eh?  Presumably you could show even better results on something
closer to server-grade hardware with more active clients.

So at this point I'm wondering why Thomas and Heikki could not measure
any win.  Based on my results it should be easy.  Is it possible that
OS X is better tuned for multi-CPU hardware than FreeBSD?

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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
>> selling any machines like that.

> I'm not sure you need quite that big a machine, if you test a workload
> that currently reaches the poll().

Well, Thomas stated in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D1CwuAq35FtVBTZO-mnGFH1xEFtDpKQOf_b6WoEmdZZHA%40mail.gmail.com
that he hadn't been able to measure any performance difference, and
I assume he was trying test cases from the WaitEventSet thread.

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.

I'd be happy to see this go in if it can be shown to provide a measurable
performance improvement, but so far we have only guesses that someday
it *might* make a difference.  That's not good enough to add to our
maintenance burden IMO.

Anyway, the patch is in the archives now, so it won't be hard to resurrect
if the situation changes.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Andres Freund
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 connection, there need to be more connections than that. At least
that was my observation on x86 / linux.

Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Andres Freund
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 sockets not cpu sockets here)


> All fine, but the burden of proof has to be on the patch to show that
> it does something significant.  We don't want to be carrying around
> platform-specific code, which necessarily has higher maintenance cost
> than other code, without a darn good reason.

No argument there.


> 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
> selling any machines like that.

I'm not sure you need quite that big a machine, if you test a workload
that currently reaches the poll().

Regards,

Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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 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.

All fine, but the burden of proof has to be on the patch to show that
it does something significant.  We don't want to be carrying around
platform-specific code, which necessarily has higher maintenance cost
than other code, without a darn good reason.

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
selling any machines like that.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Robert Haas
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() function. Most
>> notably, FreeBSD?
>
> I'm getting a little fried from "self-documenting" patches, from
> multiple sources.
>
> I think we should make it a firm requirement to explain what a patch
> is actually about, with extra points for including with it a test that
> allows us to validate that. We don't have enough committer time to
> waste on such things.

You've complained about this a whole bunch of times recently, but in
most of those cases I didn't think there was any real unclarity.  I
agree that it's a good idea for a patch to be submitted with suitable
submission notes, but it also isn't reasonable to expect those
submission notes to be reposted with every single version of every
patch.  Indeed, I'd find that pretty annoying.  Thomas linked back to
the previous thread where this was discussed, which seems more or less
sufficient.  If committers are too busy to click on links in the patch
submission emails, they have no business committing anything.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Simon Riggs
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" patches, from
multiple sources.

I think we should make it a firm requirement to explain what a patch
is actually about, with extra points for including with it a test that
allows us to validate that. We don't have enough committer time to
waste on such things.

-- 
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Andres Freund
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 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.


> I launched a FreeBSD 10.3 instance on Amazon EC2 (ami-e0682b80), on a
> m4.10xlarge instance. That's a 40 core system, biggest available, I believe.
> I built PostgreSQL master on it, and ran pgbench to benchmark:
> 
> pgbench -i -s 200 postgres
> pgbench -M prepared  -j 36 -c 36 -S postgres -T20 -P1

This seems likely to actually seldomly exercise the relevant code
path. We only do the poll()/epoll_wait()/... when a read() doesn't
return anything, but that seems likely to seldomly occur here.  Using a
lower thread count and a lot higher client count might change that.

Note that the case where poll vs. epoll made a large difference (after
the regression due to ac1d7945f86) on linux was only on fairly large
machines, with high clients counts.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas

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 trying on a multi-CPU Mac.


If there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and
poll(), I think we should forget about this.


I agree that we shouldn't add this unless it's demonstrably a win.
No opinion on whether your test is adequate.


I'm marking this as "Returned with Feedback", waiting for someone to 
post test results that show a positive performance benefit from this.


- Heikki




--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Tom Lane
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 there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and 
> poll(), I think we should forget about this.

I agree that we shouldn't add this unless it's demonstrably a win.
No opinion on whether your test is adequate.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-13 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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 available, I 
believe. I built PostgreSQL master on it, and ran pgbench to benchmark:


pgbench -i -s 200 postgres
pgbench -M prepared  -j 36 -c 36 -S postgres -T20 -P1

I set shared_buffers to 10 GB, so that the whole database fits in cache. 
I tested that with and without kqueue-v5.patch


Result: I don't see any difference in performance. pgbench reports 
between 80,000 and 97,000 TPS, with or without the patch:


[ec2-user@ip-172-31-17-174 ~/postgresql]$ ~/pgsql-install/bin/pgbench -M 
prepared  -j 36 -c 36 -S postgres -T20 -P1

starting vacuum...end.
progress: 1.0 s, 94537.1 tps, lat 0.368 ms stddev 0.145
progress: 2.0 s, 96745.9 tps, lat 0.368 ms stddev 0.143
progress: 3.0 s, 93870.1 tps, lat 0.380 ms stddev 0.146
progress: 4.0 s, 89482.9 tps, lat 0.399 ms stddev 0.146
progress: 5.0 s, 87815.0 tps, lat 0.406 ms stddev 0.148
progress: 6.0 s, 86415.5 tps, lat 0.413 ms stddev 0.145
progress: 7.0 s, 86011.0 tps, lat 0.415 ms stddev 0.147
progress: 8.0 s, 84923.0 tps, lat 0.420 ms stddev 0.147
progress: 9.0 s, 84596.6 tps, lat 0.422 ms stddev 0.146
progress: 10.0 s, 84537.7 tps, lat 0.422 ms stddev 0.146
progress: 11.0 s, 83910.5 tps, lat 0.425 ms stddev 0.150
progress: 12.0 s, 83738.2 tps, lat 0.426 ms stddev 0.150
progress: 13.0 s, 83837.5 tps, lat 0.426 ms stddev 0.147
progress: 14.0 s, 83578.4 tps, lat 0.427 ms stddev 0.147
progress: 15.0 s, 83609.5 tps, lat 0.427 ms stddev 0.148
progress: 16.0 s, 83423.5 tps, lat 0.428 ms stddev 0.151
progress: 17.0 s, 83318.2 tps, lat 0.428 ms stddev 0.149
progress: 18.0 s, 82992.7 tps, lat 0.430 ms stddev 0.149
progress: 19.0 s, 83155.9 tps, lat 0.429 ms stddev 0.151
progress: 20.0 s, 83209.0 tps, lat 0.429 ms stddev 0.152
transaction type: 
scaling factor: 200
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 36
number of threads: 36
duration: 20 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1723759
latency average = 0.413 ms
latency stddev = 0.149 ms
tps = 86124.484867 (including connections establishing)
tps = 86208.458034 (excluding connections establishing)


Is this test setup reasonable? I know very little about FreeBSD, I'm 
afraid, so I don't know how to profile or test that further than that.


If there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and 
poll(), I think we should forget about this. If there's a FreeBSD hacker 
out there that can demonstrate better results, I'm all for committing 
this, but I'm reluctant to add code if no-one can show the benefit.


- Heikki



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-09 Thread Thomas Munro
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 list so EINTR counts as
> +* success.
> +*/
>
> this doesn't seem to be guaranteed on old versions of FreeBSD or any other
> BSD flavors, so I don't think it's a good idea to bake the assumption into
> this code.  Or what do you think?

Thanks for the testing and review!

Hmm.  Well spotted.  I wrote that because the man page from FreeBSD 10.3 says:

  When kevent() call fails with EINTR error, all changes in the changelist
  have been applied.

This sentence is indeed missing from the OpenBSD, NetBSD and OSX man
pages.  It was introduced by FreeBSD commit r280818[1] which made
kevent a Pthread cancellation point.  I investigated whether it is
also true in older FreeBSD and the rest of the BSD family.  I believe
the answer is yes.

1.  That commit doesn't do anything that would change the situation:
it just adds thread cancellation wrapper code to libc and libthr which
exits under certain conditions but otherwise lets EINTR through to the
caller.  So I think the new sentence is documentation of the existing
behaviour of the syscall.

2.  I looked at the code in FreeBSD 4.1[2] (the original kqueue
implementation from which all others derive) and the four modern
OSes[3][4][5][6].  They vary a bit but in all cases, the first place
that can produce EINTR appears to be in kqueue_scan when the
(variously named) kernel sleep routine is invoked, which can return
EINTR or ERESTART  (later translated to EINTR because kevent doesn't
support restarting).  That comes after all changes have been applied.
In fact it's unreachable if nevents is 0: OSX doesn't call kqueue_scan
in that case, and the others return early from kqueue_scan in that
case.

3.  An old email[7] from Jonathan Lemon (creator of kqueue) seems to
support that at least in respect of ancient FreeBSD.  He wrote:
"Technically, an EINTR is returned when a signal interrupts the
process after it goes to sleep (that is, after it calls tsleep).  So
if (as an example) you call kevent() with a zero valued timespec,
you'll never get EINTR, since there's no possibility of it sleeping."

So if I've understood correctly, what I wrote in the v4 patch is
universally true, but it's also moot in this case: kevent cannot fail
with errno == EINTR because nevents == 0.  On that basis, here is a
new version with the comment and special case for EINTR removed.

[1] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=280818
[2] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/release/4.1.0/sys/kern/kern_event.c
[3] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/kern/kern_event.c
[4] https://github.com/IIJ-NetBSD/netbsd-src/blob/master/sys/kern/kern_event.c
[5] https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/sys/kern/kern_event.c
[6] https://github.com/opensource-apple/xnu/blob/master/bsd/kern/kern_event.c
[7] http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-arch=98147346707952=2

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


kqueue-v5.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-09-06 Thread Marko Tiikkaja

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 "strtoint".  We have "strtoint64" elsewhere.


For closure of this subthread: this rename was committed by Tom as
0ab3595e5bb5.


Thanks.  And here is a new version of the kqueue patch.  The previous
version doesn't apply on top of recent commit
a3b30763cc8686f5b4cd121ef0bf510c1533ac22, which sprinkled some
MAXALIGN macros nearby.  I've now done the same thing with the kevent
struct because it's cheap, uniform with the other cases and could
matter on some platforms for the same reason.


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 list so EINTR counts as
+* success.
+*/

this doesn't seem to be guaranteed on old versions of FreeBSD or any 
other BSD flavors, so I don't think it's a good idea to bake the 
assumption into this code.  Or what do you think?



.m


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-06-02 Thread Thomas Munro
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" elsewhere.
>
> For closure of this subthread: this rename was committed by Tom as
> 0ab3595e5bb5.

Thanks.  And here is a new version of the kqueue patch.  The previous
version doesn't apply on top of recent commit
a3b30763cc8686f5b4cd121ef0bf510c1533ac22, which sprinkled some
MAXALIGN macros nearby.  I've now done the same thing with the kevent
struct because it's cheap, uniform with the other cases and could
matter on some platforms for the same reason.

It's in the September commitfest here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/597/

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


kqueue-v4.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-06-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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
0ab3595e5bb5.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Tom Lane
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 our static function strtoi
>>> clashes with a non-standard libc function of the same name[1] declared
>>> in inttypes.h.  Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?

>> Yuck. That's a new function they introduced? That code hasn't changed in
>> a while

> Yes, according to the man page it appeared in NetBSD 7.0.  That was
> released in September 2015, and our buildfarm has only NetBSD 5.x
> systems.  I see that the maintainers of the NetBSD pg package deal
> with this with a preprocessor kludge:

> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/databases/postgresql95/patches/patch-src_backend_utils_adt_datetime.c?rev=1.1

> What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone
> cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal?

There's no set policy, but certainly a promise to put up a buildfarm
animal would establish that somebody actually cares about keeping
Postgres running on the platform.  Without one, we might fix a specific
problem when reported, but we'd have no way to know about new problems.

Rooting through that patches directory reveals quite a number of
random-looking patches, most of which we certainly wouldn't take
without a lot more than zero explanation.  It's hard to tell which
are actually needed, but at least some don't seem to have anything
to do with building for NetBSD.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Andres Freund
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.

> pg_strtoi?

I think that's what Thomas did upthread. Are you taking this one then?


Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Andres Freund
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 do...

- Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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
> >> clashes with a non-standard libc function of the same name[1] declared
> >> in inttypes.h.  Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?
> >
> > Yuck. That's a new function they introduced? That code hasn't changed in
> > a while
> 
> Yes, according to the man page it appeared in NetBSD 7.0.  That was
> released in September 2015, and our buildfarm has only NetBSD 5.x
> systems.  I see that the maintainers of the NetBSD pg package deal
> with this with a preprocessor kludge:
> 
> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/databases/postgresql95/patches/patch-src_backend_utils_adt_datetime.c?rev=1.1
> 
> What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone
> cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal?

Well, if the platform is truly alive, we would have gotten complaints
already.  Since we haven't, maybe nobody cares, so why should we?  I
would rename our function nonetheless FWIW; the name seems far too
generic to me.  pg_strtoi?

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Thomas Munro
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 libc function of the same name[1] declared
>> in inttypes.h.  Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?
>
> Yuck. That's a new function they introduced? That code hasn't changed in
> a while

Yes, according to the man page it appeared in NetBSD 7.0.  That was
released in September 2015, and our buildfarm has only NetBSD 5.x
systems.  I see that the maintainers of the NetBSD pg package deal
with this with a preprocessor kludge:

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/databases/postgresql95/patches/patch-src_backend_utils_adt_datetime.c?rev=1.1

What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone
cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal?

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Andres Freund
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 regression tests and some basic sanity checks on OSX 10.11.4,
> FreeBSD 10.3, NetBSD 7.0 and OpenBSD 5.8.  There is still room to make
> an improvement that would drop the syscall from AddWaitEventToSet and
> ModifyWaitEvent, compressing wait set modifications and waiting into a
> single syscall (kqueue's claimed advantage over the competition).

I find that not to be particularly interesting, and would rather want to
avoid adding complexity for it.


> 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 libc function of the same name[1] declared
> in inttypes.h.  Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?

Yuck. That's a new function they introduced? That code hasn't changed in
a while

Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-22 Thread Thomas Munro
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, 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 where kevent.udata is an intptr_t instead of a void
>> >> > *.  Here's a version which should compile there.  Would any NetBSD
>> >> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
>> >> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
>> >> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
>> >>
>> >> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?
>> >
>> > RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
>> > feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
>> > present on free/netbsd.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that it would be a reasonable thing to do if
>> somebody can demonstrate that it actually solves a real problem.
>> Absent that, I don't think we should rush it in.
>
> On linux you needed a 2 socket machine to demonstrate the problem, but
> both old ones (my 2009 workstation) and new ones were sufficient. I'd be
> surprised if the situation on freebsd is any better, except that you
> might hit another scalability bottleneck earlier.
>
> I doubt there's many real postgres instances operating on bigger
> hardware on freebsd, with sufficient throughput to show the problem. So
> I think the argument for including is more along trying to be "nice" to
> more niche-y OSs.

What has BSD ever done for us?!  (Joke...)

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.  I can't see any measurable performance difference on a 4
core laptop running FreeBSD 10.3.  Maybe kqueue will make more
difference even on smaller systems in future releases if we start
using big wait sets for distributed/asynchronous work, in-core
pooling/admission control etc.

Here's a new version of the patch that fixes some stupid bugs.  I have
run regression tests and some basic sanity checks on OSX 10.11.4,
FreeBSD 10.3, NetBSD 7.0 and OpenBSD 5.8.  There is still room to make
an improvement that would drop the syscall from AddWaitEventToSet and
ModifyWaitEvent, compressing wait set modifications and waiting into a
single syscall (kqueue's claimed advantage over the competition).

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 libc function of the same name[1] declared
in inttypes.h.  Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?

[1] http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?strtoi++NetBSD-current

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


rename-strtoi.patch
Description: Binary data


kqueue-v3.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Andres Freund
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 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 compile there.  Would any NetBSD
> >> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
> >> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
> >> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
> >>
> >> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?
> >
> > RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
> > feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
> > present on free/netbsd.
> 
> My personal opinion is that it would be a reasonable thing to do if
> somebody can demonstrate that it actually solves a real problem.
> Absent that, I don't think we should rush it in.

On linux you needed a 2 socket machine to demonstrate the problem, but
both old ones (my 2009 workstation) and new ones were sufficient. I'd be
surprised if the situation on freebsd is any better, except that you
might hit another scalability bottleneck earlier.

I doubt there's many real postgres instances operating on bigger
hardware on freebsd, with sufficient throughput to show the problem. So
I think the argument for including is more along trying to be "nice" to
more niche-y OSs.

I really don't have any opinion either way.

- Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Robert Haas
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
>> >>  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 where kevent.udata is an intptr_t instead of a void
>> >> > *.  Here's a version which should compile there.  Would any NetBSD
>> >> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
>> >> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
>> >> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
>> >>
>> >> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?
>> >
>> > RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
>> > feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
>> > present on free/netbsd.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that it would be a reasonable thing to do if
>> somebody can demonstrate that it actually solves a real problem.
>> Absent that, I don't think we should rush it in.
>
> My first question is whether there are platforms that use kqueue on
> which the WaitEventSet stuff proves to be a bottleneck.  I vaguely
> recall that MacOS X in particular doesn't scale terribly well for other
> reasons, and I don't know if anybody runs *BSD in large machines.
>
> On the other hand, there's plenty of hackers running their laptops on
> MacOS X these days, so presumably any platform dependent problem would
> be discovered quickly enough.  As for NetBSD, it seems mostly a fringe
> platform, doesn't it?  We would discover serious dependency problems
> quickly enough on the buildfarm ... except that the only netbsd
> buildfarm member hasn't reported in over two weeks.
>
> Am I mistaken in any of these points?
>
> (Our coverage of the BSD platforms leaves much to be desired FWIW.)

My impression is that the Linux problem only manifested itself on
large machines.  I might be wrong about that.  But if that's true,
then we might not see regressions on other platforms just because
people aren't running those operating systems on big enough hardware.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 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 compile there.  Would any NetBSD
> >> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
> >> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
> >> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
> >>
> >> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?
> >
> > RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
> > feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
> > present on free/netbsd.
> 
> My personal opinion is that it would be a reasonable thing to do if
> somebody can demonstrate that it actually solves a real problem.
> Absent that, I don't think we should rush it in.

My first question is whether there are platforms that use kqueue on
which the WaitEventSet stuff proves to be a bottleneck.  I vaguely
recall that MacOS X in particular doesn't scale terribly well for other
reasons, and I don't know if anybody runs *BSD in large machines.

On the other hand, there's plenty of hackers running their laptops on
MacOS X these days, so presumably any platform dependent problem would
be discovered quickly enough.  As for NetBSD, it seems mostly a fringe
platform, doesn't it?  We would discover serious dependency problems
quickly enough on the buildfarm ... except that the only netbsd
buildfarm member hasn't reported in over two weeks.

Am I mistaken in any of these points?

(Our coverage of the BSD platforms leaves much to be desired FWIW.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Robert Haas
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
>> > 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 compile there.  Would any NetBSD
>> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
>> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
>> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
>>
>> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?
>
> RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
> feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
> present on free/netbsd.

My personal opinion is that it would be a reasonable thing to do if
somebody can demonstrate that it actually solves a real problem.
Absent that, I don't think we should rush it in.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Andres Freund
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 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 compile there.  Would any NetBSD
> > user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
> > configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
> > incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)
> 
> Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?

RMT, what do you think, should we try to get this into 9.6? It's
feasible that the performance problem 98a64d0bd713c addressed is also
present on free/netbsd.

- Andres


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] kqueue

2016-04-21 Thread Robert Haas
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 where kevent.udata is an intptr_t instead of a void
> *.  Here's a version which should compile there.  Would any NetBSD
> user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
> configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
> incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)

Did you code this up blind or do you have a NetBSD machine yourself?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


[HACKERS] kqueue

2016-03-29 Thread Thomas Munro
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 compile there.  Would any NetBSD
user be interested in testing this?  (An alternative would be to make
configure to test for this with some kind of AC_COMPILE_IFELSE
incantation but the steamroller cast is simpler.)

[1] 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm=1dZ_mC+V3YtB79zf27280nign8MKOLxy2FKhvc1RzN=g...@mail.gmail.com
[2] 
https://github.com/libevent/libevent/commit/5602e451ce872d7d60c640590113c5a81c3fc389

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


kqueue-v2.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers