Re: profiling connection overhead

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, HeikkiLinnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead
Date: 2010-11-24 21:28:43
Message-ID: 201011242228.44011.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday 24 November 2010 22:18:08 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >>> Won't this just cause loads of additional pagefaults after fork() when
> >>> those pages are used the first time and then a second time when first
> >>> written to (to copy it)?
> >>
> >> Aren't we incurring those page faults anyway, for whatever memory
> >> palloc is handing out? The heap is no different from bss; we just
> >> move the pointer with sbrk().
> >
> > Yes, but only once. Also scrubbing a page is faster than copying it...
> > (and there were patches floating around to do that in advance, not sure
> > if they got integrated into mainline linux)
> I'm not following - can you elaborate?
When forking the memory mapping of the process is copied - the actual pages
are not. When a page is first accessed the page fault handler will setup a
mapping to the "old" page and mark it as shared. When now written to it will
fault again and copy the page.

In contrast if you access a page the first time after an sbrk (or mmap, doesn't
matter) a new page will get scrubbed and and a mapping will get setup.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-11-24 21:30:07 Re: profiling connection overhead
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-11-24 21:25:45 Re: profiling connection overhead