From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Jun 3 17:29:15 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CF9B69CF3; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:29:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CE151B82; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:29:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asomers@gmail.com) Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id f12so62123oig.0; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=0T/M7FVnkzUYPYnLcFH3kPoXbFfV5oq2CaxWWIOwniw=; b=iGIXdhv5SmpqGrEEZCVFu3LD7ILg0qyFsCnjvoyyCUNVGgoPIMXmiHZ6InzVvZZYe8 z5a8MAEbqW6kDWoFPXaDNL9L80otHF35ecgtT1o1q3MnQNoITA92bVs22Tygpbfp6N1j QDnND2TfE5KebI3FMLz8eRhwirJSilh2NsYQ6j41RkCfNpS4+lfvUPSkNYlSDOqOidgf /a2X03PKdqti2bRyXahVj5ApTk0eiTWy4MrEHfU4zcHDLzCtEDl59o6sEzmu7v9Tyrub MrQxcfw/aJoOh2rD//QDuR/3dBuC5Jl0KHCtR1F7JPT8RVFlgg9UIoO8KKf3UEbYB8zY H4eQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0T/M7FVnkzUYPYnLcFH3kPoXbFfV5oq2CaxWWIOwniw=; b=igA1+VTQfwzuxxL7zAOP6PBtBmvzHeP3xpE+CFaUSo5Xh20mEenrkgr+ggGdPBNSqA 9GipXy02AexaYH40qYsdnBgNqSkwYbWxMsmXIfJBsi5vQaV4zS7Yn/PLbcTTpD6wLvQK 6xHEel4tASrT/BqaFc378nMW9EbtOzEKVdk2ntn7U4NLrUCNjnO6dckswQjwPNZIieDf 5L6ITQUug8VXqRCgLElLk2B/heOUVp3V4oI4R9rmdcjc9xBOYTyyvp9IXbNoiIQmgkTJ YTthWQ131paVXPDLdAWZ/9tKpjJwzhlJAz3tcMAnzNP4SQaxe4hSGNyr29Ro5fAbYw2C 7UBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI47ZOfVDuEd3EV+5y0D/nhK75H8/aws4EuHumEnDYHoPgKQ/13caFgRh1dBIxBTl+CJjRYlThn70aqtw== X-Received: by 10.202.212.19 with SMTP id l19mr2524272oig.182.1464974954443; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: asomers@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.4.200 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160603172633.GY38613@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20140627125613.GT93733@kib.kiev.ua> <201408121409.40653.jhb@freebsd.org> <201408141147.45698.jhb@freebsd.org> <53ECFDC8.1070200@rice.edu> <20160603172633.GY38613@kib.kiev.ua> From: Alan Somers Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:29:13 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BEUIntNPI2bGuyinfCcreiWpry4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PostgreSQL performance on FreeBSD To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: Alan Cox , John Baldwin , alc@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , freebsd-current , performance@freebsd.org, "current@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 17:29:15 -0000 On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:29:16AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: >> I notice that, with the exception of the VM_PHYSSEG_MAX change, these >> patches never made it into head or ports. Are they unsuitable for low >> core-count machines, or is there some other reason not to commit them? >> If not, what would it take to get these into 11.0 or 11.1 ? > > The fast page fault handler was redesigned and committed in r269728 > and r270011 (with several follow-ups). > Instead of lock-less buffer queues iterators, Jeff changed buffer allocator > to use uma, see r289279. Other improvement to the buffer cache was > committed as r267255. > > What was not committed is the aggressive pre-population of the phys objects > mem queue, and a knob to further split NUMA domains into smaller domains. > The later change is rotten. > > In fact, I think that with that load, what you would see right now on > HEAD, is the contention on vm_page_queue_free_mtx. There are plans to > handle it. Thanks for the update. Is it still recommended to enable the multithreaded pagedaemon?