On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:28 PM Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-25 13:15, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> > On 2021-01-25 10:36, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:05 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> >> <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2021-01-22 14:50, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 6:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda
> >>> > <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I rebased the patch to the master branch.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you for working on this. I've read the latest patch. Here are
> >>> > comments:
> >>> >
> >>> > ---
> >>> > + if (track_wal_io_timing)
> >>> > + {
> >>> > + INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(duration);
> >>> > + INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(duration, start);
> >>> > + WalStats.m_wal_write_time +=
> >>> > INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC(duration);
> >>> > + }
> >>> >
> >>> > * I think it should add the time in micro sec.
> >>> > After running pgbench with track_wal_io_timing = on for 30 sec,
> >>> > pg_stat_wal showed the following on my environment:
> >>> >
> >>> > postgres(1:61569)=# select * from pg_stat_wal;
> >>> > -[ RECORD 1 ]----+-----------------------------
> >>> > wal_records | 285947
> >>> > wal_fpi | 53285
> >>> > wal_bytes | 442008213
> >>> > wal_buffers_full | 0
> >>> > wal_write | 25516
> >>> > wal_write_time | 0
> >>> > wal_sync | 25437
> >>> > wal_sync_time | 14490
> >>> > stats_reset | 2021-01-22 10:56:13.29464+09
> >>> >
> >>> > Since writes can complete less than a millisecond, wal_write_time
> >>> > didn't increase. I think sync_time could also have the same problem.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your comments. I didn't notice that.
> >>> I changed the unit from milliseconds to microseconds.
> >>>
> >>> > ---
> >>> > + /*
> >>> > + * Measure i/o timing to fsync WAL data.
> >>> > + *
> >>> > + * The wal receiver skip to collect it to avoid performance
> >>> > degradation of standy servers.
> >>> > + * If sync_method doesn't have its fsync method, to skip too.
> >>> > + */
> >>> > + if (!AmWalReceiverProcess() && track_wal_io_timing &&
> >>> > fsyncMethodCalled())
> >>> > + INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(start);
> >>> >
> >>> > * Why does only the wal receiver skip it even if track_wal_io_timinig
> >>> > is true? I think the performance degradation is also true for backend
> >>> > processes. If there is another reason for that, I think it's better to
> >>> > mention in both the doc and comment.
> >>> > * How about checking track_wal_io_timing first?
> >>> > * s/standy/standby/
> >>>
> >>> I fixed it.
> >>> As kuroda-san mentioned too, the skip is no need to be considered.
> >>
> >> I think you also removed the code to have the wal receiver report the
> >> stats. So with the latest patch, the wal receiver tracks those
> >> statistics but doesn't report.
> >> And maybe XLogWalRcvWrite() also needs to track I/O?
> >
> > Thanks, I forgot to add them.
> > I'll fix it.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> > ---
> >>> > + /* increment the i/o timing and the number of times to fsync WAL
> >>> > data */
> >>> > + if (fsyncMethodCalled())
> >>> > + {
> >>> > + if (!AmWalReceiverProcess() && track_wal_io_timing)
> >>> > + {
> >>> > + INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(duration);
> >>> > + INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(duration, start);
> >>> > + WalStats.m_wal_sync_time +=
> >>> > INSTR_TIME_GET_MILLISEC(duration);
> >>> > + }
> >>> > +
> >>> > + WalStats.m_wal_sync++;
> >>> > + }
> >>> >
> >>> > * I'd avoid always calling fsyncMethodCalled() in this path. How about
> >>> > incrementing m_wal_sync after each sync operation?
> >>>
> >>> I think if syncing the disk does not occur, m_wal_sync should not be
> >>> incremented.
> >>> It depends enableFsync and sync_method.
> >>>
> >>> enableFsync is checked in each fsync method like
> >>> pg_fsync_no_writethrough(),
> >>> so if incrementing m_wal_sync after each sync operation, it should be
> >>> implemented
> >>> in each fsync method. It leads to many duplicated codes.
> >>
> >> Right. I missed that each fsync function checks enableFsync.
> >>
> >>> So, why don't you change the function to a flag whether to
> >>> sync data to the disk will be occurred or not in issue_xlog_fsync()?
> >>
> >> Looks better. Since we don't necessarily need to increment m_wal_sync
> >> after doing fsync we can write the code without an additional variable
> >> as follows:
> >>
> >> if (enableFsync)
> >> {
> >> switch (sync_method)
> >> {
> >> case SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC:
> >> #ifdef HAVE_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH
> >> case SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH:
> >> #endif
> >> #ifdef HAVE_FDATASYNC
> >> case SYNC_METHOD_FDATASYNC:
> >> #endif
> >> WalStats.m_wal_sync++;
> >> if (track_wal_io_timing)
> >> INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(start);
> >> break;
> >> default:
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> (do fsync and error handling here)
> >>
> >> /* increment the i/o timing and the number of times to fsync WAL
> >> data */
> >> if (track_wal_io_timing)
> >> {
> >> INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(duration);
> >> INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(duration, start);
> >> WalStats.m_wal_sync_time = INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC(duration);
> >> }
> >
> > IIUC, I think we can't handle the following case.
> >
> > When "sync_method" is SYNC_METHOD_OPEN or SYNC_METHOD_OPEN_DSYNC and
> > "track_wal_io_timing" is enabled, "start" doesn't be initialized.
> >
> > My understanding is something wrong, isn't it?
You're right. We might want to initialize 'start' with 0 in those two
cases and check if INSTR_TIME_IS_ZERO() later when accumulating the
I/O time.
>
> I thought the following is better.
>
>
> ```
> /* Measure i/o timing to sync WAL data.*/
> if (track_wal_io_timing)
> INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(start);
>
> (do fsync and error handling here)
>
> /* check whether to sync WAL data to the disk right now. */
> if (enableFsync)
> {
> if ((sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC) ||
> (sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FSYNC_WRITETHROUGH) ||
> (sync_method == SYNC_METHOD_FDATASYNC))
> {
> /* increment the i/o timing and the number of times
> to fsync WAL data
> */
> if (track_wal_io_timing)
> {
> instr_time duration;
>
> INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(duration);
> INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(duration, start);
> WalStats.m_wal_sync_time =
> INSTR_TIME_GET_MICROSEC(duration);
> }
> WalStats.m_wal_sync++;
> }
> }
> ```
>
> Although INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(start) is called everytime regardless
> of the "sync_method" and "enableFsync", we don't make additional
> variables.
> But it's ok because "track_wal_io_timing" leads already performance
> degradation.
>
> What do you think?
That also fine with me.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
