Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?

David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>

From: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-24T13:30:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. pg_test_timing: Also test RDTSC[P] timing, report time source, TSC frequency

  2. Allow retrieving x86 TSC frequency/flags from CPUID

  3. instrumentation: Standardize ticks to nanosecond conversion method

  4. instrumentation: Use Time-Stamp Counter on x86-64 to lower overhead

  5. Zero initialize uses of instr_time about to trigger compiler warnings

  6. instr_time: Represent time as an int64 on all platforms

  7. Add 250c8ee07ed to git-blame-ignore-revs

Attachments

Hi,

On 1/23/23 18:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> If we add it, it probably shouldn't depend on TIMING, but on
> SUMMARY. Regression test queries showing EXPLAIN ANALYZE output all do
> something like
>    EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS OFF, SUMMARY OFF, TIMING OFF)
>
> the SUMMARY OFF gets rid of the "top-level" "Planning Time" and "Execution
> Time", whereas the TIMING OFF gets rid of the per-node timing. Those are
> separate options because per-node timing is problematic performance-wise
> (right now), but whole-query timing rarely is.
Makes sense. I wasn't aware of SUMMARY. Let's keep this option in mind, 
in case we'll revisit exposing the clock source in the future.
> Another, independent, thing worth thinking about: I think we might want to
> expose both rdtsc and rdtscp. For something like
> InstrStartNode()/InstrStopNode(), avoiding the "one-way barrier" of rdtscp is
> quite important to avoid changing the query performance. But for measuring
> whole-query time, we likely want to measure the actual time.
>
> It probably won't matter hugely for the whole query time - the out of order
> window of modern CPUs is large, but not *that* large - but I don't think we
> can generally assume that.

That's what I thought as well. I added INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST() and 
for now call that variant from InstrStartNode(), InstrEndNode() and 
pg_test_timing. To do so in InstrEndNode(), I removed 
INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_LAZY(). Otherwise, two variants of that macro 
would be needed. INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_LAZY() was only used in a single 
place and the code is more readable that way. INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() 
is called from a bunch of places. I still have to go through all of them 
and see which should be changed to call the _FAST() variant.

Attached is v7 of the patch:

- Rebased on latest master (most importantly on top of the int64 
instr_time commits). - Includes two commits from Andres which introduce 
INSTR_TIME_SET_SECONDS(), INSTR_TIME_IS_LT() and WIP to report 
pg_test_timing output in nanoseconds. - Converts ticks to nanoseconds 
only with integer math, while accounting for overflow. - Supports RDTSCP 
via INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() and introduced 
INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST() which uses RDTSC.

I haven't gotten to the following:

- Looking through all calls to INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() and check if 
they should be replaced by INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST(). - Reviewing 
Andres commits. Potentially improving on pg_test_timing's output. - 
Looking at enabling RDTSC on more platforms. Is there a minimum set of 
platforms we would like support for? Windows should be easy. That would 
also allow to unify the code a little more. - Add more documentation and 
do more testing around the calls to CPUID. - Profiling and optimizing 
the code. A quick test showed about 10% improvement over master with 
TIMING ON vs TIMING OFF, when using the test-case from Andres' e-mail 
that started this thread.

I hope I'll find time to work on these points during the next days.

-- 
David Geier
(ServiceNow)