Refactor CheckpointWriteDelay()

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Refactor CheckpointWriteDelay()
Date: 2022-02-10 12:01:55
Message-ID: CALj2ACUR5uvmdPtyksD+7pe=P9cH+0dV9Q7dNHLx28PDGZxPHA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Given that CheckpointWriteDelay() is really a hot code path i.e. gets
called for every dirty buffer written to disk, here's an opportunity
for us to improve it by avoiding some function calls.

Firstly, the AmCheckpointerProcess() macro check can be placed outside
of the CheckpointWriteDelay() which avoids function calls (dirty
buffers written to disk * one function call cost) for a
non-checkpointer process(standalone backend) performing checkpoint.

Secondly, remove the function ImmediateCheckpointRequested() and read
the ckpt_flags from the CheckpointerShmem with volatile qualifier.
This saves some LOC and cost = dirty buffers written to disk * one
function call cost. The ImmediateCheckpointRequested() really does
nothing great, it just reads from the shared memory without lock and
checks whether there's any immediate checkpoint request pending behind
the current one.

Attaching a patch with the above changes. Please have a look at it.

I did a small experiment[1] with a use case [2] on my dev system where
I measured the total time spent in CheckpointWriteDelay() with and
without patch, to my surprise, I didn't see much difference. It may be
my experiment is wrong, my dev box doesn't show much diff and others
may or may not notice the difference. Despite this, the patch proposed
still helps IMO as it saves a few LOC (16) and I'm sure it will also
save some time for standalone backend checkpoints.

Other hackers may not agree with me on the readability (IMO, the patch
doesn't make it unreadable) or the diff that it creates with the
previous versions and so on. I'd rather argue that
CheckpointWriteDelay() is really a hot code path in production
environments and the patch proposed has some benefits.

Thoughts?

[1] see "write delay" at the end of "checkpoint complete" message:
HEAD:
2022-02-08 05:56:45.551 UTC [651784] LOG: checkpoint starting: time
2022-02-08 05:57:39.154 UTC [651784] LOG: checkpoint complete: wrote
14740 buffers (90.0%); 0 WAL file(s) added, 0 removed, 27 recycled;
write=53.461 s, sync=0.027 s, total=53.604 s; sync files=22,
longest=0.016 s, average=0.002 s; distance=438865 kB, estimate=438865
kB; write delay=53104.194 ms

2022-02-08 05:59:24.173 UTC [652589] LOG: checkpoint starting: time
2022-02-08 06:00:18.166 UTC [652589] LOG: checkpoint complete: wrote
14740 buffers (90.0%); 0 WAL file(s) added, 0 removed, 27 recycled;
write=53.848 s, sync=0.030 s, total=53.993 s; sync files=22,
longest=0.017 s, average=0.002 s; distance=438865 kB, estimate=438865
kB; write delay=53603.159 ms

PATCHED:
2022-02-08 06:07:26.286 UTC [662667] LOG: checkpoint starting: time
2022-02-08 06:08:20.152 UTC [662667] LOG: checkpoint complete: wrote
14740 buffers (90.0%); 0 WAL file(s) added, 0 removed, 27 recycled;
write=53.732 s, sync=0.026 s, total=53.867 s; sync files=22,
longest=0.016 s, average=0.002 s; distance=438865 kB, estimate=438865
kB; write delay=53399.582 ms

2022-02-08 06:10:17.554 UTC [663393] LOG: checkpoint starting: time
2022-02-08 06:11:11.163 UTC [663393] LOG: checkpoint complete: wrote
14740 buffers (90.0%); 0 WAL file(s) added, 0 removed, 27 recycled;
write=53.488 s, sync=0.023 s, total=53.610 s; sync files=22,
longest=0.018 s, average=0.002 s; distance=438865 kB, estimate=438865
kB; write delay=53099.114 ms

[2]
checkpoint_timeout = 60s
create table t1(a1 int, b1 int);
/* inserted 7mn rows */
insert into t1 select i, i*2 from generate_series(1, 7000000) i;

Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-Refactor-CheckpointWriteDelay.patch application/x-patch 3.3 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2022-02-10 12:32:31 Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-02-10 11:53:15 Re: Unnecessary call to resetPQExpBuffer in getIndexes