Re: adding wait_start column to pg_locks

On 2021/02/18 16:26, torikoshia wrote:
> On 2021-02-16 16:59, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2021/02/15 15:17, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/02/10 10:43, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/02/09 23:31, torikoshia wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-02-09 22:54, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/02/09 19:11, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021/02/09 18:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021/02/09 17:48, torikoshia wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-02-05 18:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/02/05 0:03, torikoshia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-02-03 11:23, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 64-bit fetches are not atomic on some platforms. So spinlock is necessary when updating "waitStart" without holding the partition lock? Also GetLockStatusData() needs spinlock when reading "waitStart"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it might be worth thinking to use 64-bit atomic operations like
>>>>>>>>>>>> pg_atomic_read_u64(), for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your suggestion and advice!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the attached patch I used pg_atomic_read_u64() and pg_atomic_write_u64().
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> waitStart is TimestampTz i.e., int64, but it seems pg_atomic_read_xxx and pg_atomic_write_xxx only supports unsigned int, so I cast the type.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I may be using these functions not correctly, so if something is wrong, I would appreciate any comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> About the documentation, since your suggestion seems better than v6, I used it as is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for updating the patch!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (pg_atomic_read_u64(&MyProc->waitStart) == 0)
>>>>>>>>>> +        pg_atomic_write_u64(&MyProc->waitStart,
>>>>>>>>>> + pg_atomic_read_u64((pg_atomic_uint64 *) &now));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pg_atomic_read_u64() is really necessary? I think that
>>>>>>>>>> "pg_atomic_write_u64(&MyProc->waitStart, now)" is enough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +        deadlockStart = get_timeout_start_time(DEADLOCK_TIMEOUT);
>>>>>>>>>> +        pg_atomic_write_u64(&MyProc->waitStart,
>>>>>>>>>> +                    pg_atomic_read_u64((pg_atomic_uint64 *) &deadlockStart));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same as above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +        /*
>>>>>>>>>> +         * Record waitStart reusing the deadlock timeout timer.
>>>>>>>>>> +         *
>>>>>>>>>> +         * It would be ideal this can be synchronously done with updating
>>>>>>>>>> +         * lock information. Howerver, since it gives performance impacts
>>>>>>>>>> +         * to hold partitionLock longer time, we do it here asynchronously.
>>>>>>>>>> +         */
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO it's better to comment why we reuse the deadlock timeout timer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      proc->waitStatus = waitStatus;
>>>>>>>>>> +    pg_atomic_init_u64(&MyProc->waitStart, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pg_atomic_write_u64() should be used instead? Because waitStart can be
>>>>>>>>>> accessed concurrently there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I updated the patch and addressed the above review comments. Patch attached.
>>>>>>>>>> Barring any objection, I will commit this version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for modifying the patch!
>>>>>>>>> I agree with your comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, I ran pgbench several times before and after applying
>>>>>>>>> this patch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The environment is virtual machine(CentOS 8), so this is
>>>>>>>>> just for reference, but there were no significant difference
>>>>>>>>> in latency or tps(both are below 1%).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the test! I pushed the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I reverted the patch because buildfarm members rorqual and
>>>>>>> prion don't like the patch. I'm trying to investigate the cause
>>>>>>> of this failures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rorqual&dt=2021-02-09%2009%3A20%3A10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -    relation     | locktype |        mode
>>>>>> ------------------+----------+---------------------
>>>>>> - test_prepared_1 | relation | RowExclusiveLock
>>>>>> - test_prepared_1 | relation | AccessExclusiveLock
>>>>>> -(2 rows)
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> +ERROR:  invalid spinlock number: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "rorqual" reported that the above error happened in the server built with
>>>>>> --disable-atomics --disable-spinlocks when reading pg_locks after
>>>>>> the transaction was prepared. The cause of this issue is that "waitStart"
>>>>>> atomic variable in the dummy proc created at the end of prepare transaction
>>>>>> was not initialized. I updated the patch so that pg_atomic_init_u64() is
>>>>>> called for the "waitStart" in the dummy proc for prepared transaction.
>>>>>> Patch attached. I confirmed that the patched server built with
>>>>>> --disable-atomics --disable-spinlocks passed all the regression tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for fixing the bug, I also tested v9.patch configured with
>>>>> --disable-atomics --disable-spinlocks on my environment and confirmed
>>>>> that all tests have passed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the test!
>>>>
>>>> I found another bug in the patch. InitProcess() initializes "waitStart",
>>>> but previously InitAuxiliaryProcess() did not. This could cause "invalid
>>>> spinlock number" error when reading pg_locks in the standby server.
>>>> I fixed that. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
>>>
>>> I pushed this version. Thanks!
>>
>> While reading the patch again, I found two minor things.
>>
>> 1. As discussed in another thread [1], the atomic variable "waitStart" should
>>   be initialized at the postmaster startup rather than the startup of each
>>   child process. I changed "waitStart" so that it's initialized in
>>   InitProcGlobal() and also reset to 0 by using pg_atomic_write_u64() in
>>   InitProcess() and InitAuxiliaryProcess().
>>
>> 2. Thanks to the above change, InitProcGlobal() initializes "waitStart"
>>   even in PGPROC entries for prepare transactions. But those entries are
>>   zeroed in MarkAsPreparingGuts(), so "waitStart" needs to be initialized
>>   again. Currently TwoPhaseGetDummyProc() initializes "waitStart" in the
>>   PGPROC entry for prepare transaction. But it's better to do that in
>>   MarkAsPreparingGuts() instead because that function initializes other
>>   PGPROC variables. So I moved that initialization code from
>>   TwoPhaseGetDummyProc() to MarkAsPreparingGuts().
>>
>> Patch attached. Thought?
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> It seems to me that the modification is right.
> I ran some regression tests but didn't find problems.

Thanks for the review and test! I pushed the patch.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION