Completely right. This sounds like a communication failure. Maybe Linux maintainers should pick a few applications that have "priority support" and problems with these applications are also problems with Linux itself. Breaking Postgres is a serious regression.
Reminds me of a situation where Fedora couldn't be updated if you had Wine installed and one side of the argument was "user applications are user problem" while the other was "it's Wine, like come on".
So it's not going to affect everybody both running PostgreSQL and upgrading to the latest kernel. Conditions seems to be: arm64, shitloads of core, kernel 7.0, current version of PostgreSQL.
That is not going to be 100% of the installed PostgreSQL DBs out there in the wild when 7.0 lands in a few weeks.
Yes, Macs going ARM has been a huge boon, but I've also seen crazy regressions on AWS Graviton (compared to how its supposed to perform), on .NET (and node as well), which frankly I have no expertise or time digging into.
Which was the main reason we ultimately cancelled our migration.
I'm sure this is the same reason why its important to AWS.
If someone is running postgres in a serious backend environment, i doubt they are using Ubuntu or even touching 7.x for months (or years). It’ll be some flavor of Debian or Red Hat still on 6.x (maybe even 5?). Those same users won’t touch 7.x until there has been months of testing by distros.
At worst it might become a permanent part of building a PG server and a FAQ... but if it affects one thing this badly, it will affect others.
From the article: "Linux 7.0 stable is due out in about two weeks. This is also the kernel version powering Ubuntu 26.04 LTS to be released later in April."
Unfortunately, lots of people will be running it in less than a month. At the moment, it'll take a kernel patch (not a sysctl) to undo this-- hopefully something changes.
As someone with a heavy QA/Dev Opps background I don't think we have enough details.
Is it only ARM64 ? How many ARM64 PG DBs are running 96 cores?
However...
This is the most popular database in the world. Odds are this will effect a bunch of other lesser known applications.
``` $ grep PREEMPT_DYNAMIC /boot/config-$(uname -r) CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL=y ```
if your kernel has CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC then you can go back to the pre 7.0 default by adding preempt=none to your grub config. I haven't seen any plans by Ubuntu to drop CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC from the default kernel config.
But other software won't and may not even be noticed, except as a (I hate using the term) enshittification.
Better to introduce the "correct way" in 7.0 but not regress the old (translate the "correct" into the old if necessary) - and then in 8.0 or some future release implement the regression.
On x86 a spinlock release doesn't need a memory barrier (unless you do insane things) / lock prefix, but a futex based lock does (because you otherwise may not realize you need to futex wake). Turns out that that increase in memory barriers causes regressions that are nontrivial to avoid.
Another difficulty is that most of the remaining spinlocks are just a single bit in a 8 larger byte atomic. Futexes still don't support anything but 4 bytes (we could probably get away with using it on a part of the 8 byte atomic with some reordering) and unfortunately postgres still supports platforms with no 8 byte atomics (which I think is supremely silly), and the support for a fallback implementation makes it harder to use futexes.
The spinlock triggering the contention in the report was just stupid and we only recently got around to removing it, because it isn't used during normal operation.
Edit: forgot to add that the spinlock contention is not measurable on much more extreme workloads when using huge pages. A 100GB buffer pool with 4KB pages doesn't make much sense.
A quick hack shows the contended performance to be nearly indistinguishable with a futex based lock. Which makes sense, non-PI futexes don't transfer the scheduler slice the lock owner, because they don't know who the lock owner is. Postgres' spinlock use randomized exponential backoff, so they don't prevent the lock owner from getting scheduled.
Thus the contention is worse with PREEMPT_LAZY, even with non-PI futexes (which is what typical lock implementations are based on), because the lock holder gets scheduled out more often.
Probably worth repeating: This contention is due to an absurd configuration that should never be used in practice.
Now you've gotten me wondering. This issue is, in some sense, artificial: the actual conceptual futex unlock operation does not require sequential consistency. What's needed is (roughly, anyway) an release operation that synchronizes with whoever subsequently acquires the lock (on x86, any non-WC store is sufficient) along with a promise that the kernel will get notified eventually (and preferably fairly quickly) if there was a non-spinning sleeper. But there is no requirement that the notification occur in any particular order wrt anything else except that the unlock must be visible by the time the notification occurs [0]; there isn't even a requirement that the notification not occur if there is no futex waiter.
I think that, in common cache coherence protocols, this is kind of straightforward -- the unlock is a store-release, and as long as the cache line ends up being written locally, the hardware or ucode or whatever simply [1] needs to check whether a needs-notification flag is set in the same cacheline. Or the futex-wait operation needs to do a super-heavyweight barrier to synchronize with the releasing thread even though the releasing thread does not otherwise have any barrier that would do the job.
One nasty approach that might work is to use something like membarrier, but I'm guessing that membarrier is so outrageously expensive that this would be a huge performance loss.
But maybe there are sneaky tricks. I'm wondering whether CMPXCHG (no lock) is secretly good enough for this. Imagine a lock word where bit 0 set means locked and bit 1 set means that there is a waiter. The wait operation observes (via plain MOV?) that bit 0 is set and then sets bit 1 (let's say this is done with LOCK CMPXCHG for simplicity) and then calls futex_wait(), so it thinks the lock word has the value 3. The unlock operation does plain CMPXCHG to release the lock. The failure case would be that it reports success while changing the value from 1 to 0. I don't know whether this can happen on Intel or AMD architectures.
I do expect that it would be nearly impossible to convince an x86 CPU vendor to commit to an answer either way.
(Do other architectures, e.g. the most recent ARM variants, have an RMW release operation that naturally does this? I've tried, and entirely failed AFAICT, to convince x86 HW designers to add lighter weight atomics.)
[0] Visible to the remote thread, but the kernel can easily mediate this, effectively for free.
[1] Famous last words. At least in ossified microarchitectures, nothing is simple.
This got me thinking about 64-bit futexes again. Obviously that can't work with PI... but for just FUTEX_WAIT/FUTEX_WAKE, why not?
Somebody tried a long time ago, it got dropped but I didn't actually see any major objection: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20070327110757.GY355@devserv.de...
Yeah, exactly. "Doctor, help, somebody replaced my wooden hammer with a metal one, and now I can't hit myself in the face with it as many times."
If you use spinlocks in userspace, you're gonna have a bad time.
The expectation is that the kernel should somehow detect applications that are spinning, and avoid preempting them early.
Now, the kernel engineer who introduced the brand new mechanism (introduced in Linux 7.0) for handling pre-emption says the "fix" is for Postgres to start using this new mechanism (I think the sister comment below links to what one of the Postgres engineers thinks of that, and I'm inclined mostly to agree).
> Hah. I had reflexively used huge_pages=on - as that is the only sane thing to do with 10s to 100s of GB of shared memory and thus part of all my benchmarking infrastructure - during the benchmark runs mentioned above.
> Turns out, if I disable huge pages, I actually can reproduce the contention that Salvatore reported (didn't see whether it's a regression for me though). Not anywhere close to the same degree, because the bottleneck for me is the writes.
But, they can speak for themselves here [0].
He may simply be waiting until more is known on exactly what’s causing it.
Indeed! Especially if said regression happens to impact anything trade/market related...
Doubtless someone will have to do the yelling.
Postgres uses spinlocks to hold shared memory for very critical processes. Spinlocks are an infinite loop with no sleep to attempt to hold a lock, thus "spinning". Previous kernels allowed spinlocking processes to run with PREEMPT_NONE. This flag tells the kernel to let the locking process complete their work before doing anything. Now the latest kernel removed this functionality and is interrupting spinlocking processes. So if a process that is holding a lock gets interrupted, all other postgres spinlocks processes that need the same lock spin in place for way longer times, leading to performance degradation.
In postgres, connections are handled with a process fork, not a new thread. If such a fork first reads memory, even if it already exists, that causes a minor page fault, which goes back to the kernel so it can update memory mapping tables.
The operation under lock is only a few instructions, but if it takes longer than expected, then that causes lock contention. Regression in the kernel handling minor faults?
The whole thing is then made worse because it's a spinlock, causing all waiting processes to contend over the cpus which adds to kernel processing.
Mitigated by using huge pages, which dramatically reduces the number of mapping entries and faults. I reckon that it could also be mitigated in postgres by pre-faulting all shared memory early?
While using huge pages whenever possible is the right solution and this should be enough for PostgreSQL, perhaps there are applications that cannot use huge pages and which are affected by the regression.
So I do not think that it is right to just ignore what happened.
It will be more interesting to talk about those applications if and when they are found. And I wouldn't assume the solutions are limited to reverting this change, starting to use the new spinlock time-slice extension mechanism, and enabling huge pages.
It sounds like using 4K pages with 100G of buffer cache was just the thing that made this spinlock's critical section become longer than PostgreSQL's developers had seen before. So when trying to apply the solution to some hypothetical other software that is suddenly benchmarking poorly, I'd generalize from "enable huge pages" to "look for other differences between your benchmark configuration and what the software's authors tested on".
Someone should be testing these things and reporting regressions
If a user wants to spin in an infinite loop all day every day, I don't see the problem with that. Even if the spinning will provably never do any useful work.
"Enhanced and smarter parallelisation; initial benchmarks indicate up to 40% faster analytical queries".
[1] PostgreSQL 18 released: Key features & upgrade tips:
https://www.baremon.eu/postgresql-18-released-key-features-u...
