On 2016-01-07 21:17:32 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-01-07 21:08:10 +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Hmmm. What I understood is that the workloads that have some performance
> > regressions (regressions that I have *not* seen in the many tests I ran) are
> > not due to checkpointer IOs, but rather in settings where most of the writes
> > is done by backends or bgwriter.
>
> As far as I can see you've not run many tests where the hot/warm data
> set is larger than memory (the full machine's memory, not
> shared_buffers). That quite drastically alters the performance
> characteristics here, because you suddenly have lots of synchronous read
> IO thrown into the mix.
>
> Whether it's bgwriter or not I've not fully been able to establish, but
> it's a working theory.
Hm. New theory: The current flush interface does the flushing inside
FlushBuffer()->smgrwrite()->mdwrite()->FileWrite()->FlushContextSchedule(). The
problem with that is that at that point we (need to) hold a content lock
on the buffer!
Especially on a system that's bottlenecked on IO that means we'll
frequently hold content locks for a noticeable amount of time, while
flushing blocks, without any need to.
Even if that's not the reason for the slowdowns I observed, I think this
fact gives further credence to the current "pending flushes" tracking
residing on the wrong level.
Andres