Re: [Lsf-pc] Linux kernel impact on PostgreSQL performance

On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:32 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/13/14, 2:27 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/13/14, 2:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On a related note, there's also the problem of double-buffering.  When
> >>>> we read a page into shared_buffers, we leave a copy behind in the OS
> >>>> buffers, and similarly on write-out.  It's very unclear what to do
> >>>> about this, since the kernel and PostgreSQL don't have intimate
> >>>> knowledge of what each other are doing, but it would be nice to solve
> >>>> somehow.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There you have a much harder algorithmic problem.
> >>>
> >>> You can basically control duplication with fadvise and WONTNEED. The
> >>> problem here is not the kernel and whether or not it allows postgres
> >>> to be smart about it. The problem is... what kind of smarts
> >>> (algorithm) to use.
> >>
> >>
> >> Isn't this a fairly simple matter of when we read a page into shared buffers
> >> tell the kernel do forget that page? And a corollary to that for when we
> >> dump a page out of shared_buffers (here kernel, please put this back into
> >> your cache).
> >
> >
> > That's my point. In terms of kernel-postgres interaction, it's fairly simple.
> >
> > What's not so simple, is figuring out what policy to use. Remember,
> > you cannot tell the kernel to put some page in its page cache without
> > reading it or writing it. So, once you make the kernel forget a page,
> > evicting it from shared buffers becomes quite expensive.
> 
> Well, if we were to collaborate with the kernel community on this then
> presumably we can do better than that for eviction... even to the
> extent of "here's some data from this range in this file. It's (clean|
> dirty). Put it in your cache. Just trust me on this."

This should be the madvise() interface (with MADV_WILLNEED and
MADV_DONTNEED) is there something in that interface that is
insufficient?

James