Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users
Date
Msg-id 26511.994203516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users  (Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
Responses Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users
Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users
List pgsql-hackers
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:

> DeadLockCheck: real time
>> 
> min |  max  |       avg
> -----+-------+-----------------
> 0 | 87671 | 3463.6996197719
>> 
> DeadLockCheck: user time
>> 
> min | max |      avg
> -----+-----+---------------
> 0 | 330 | 14.2205323194
>> 
> DeadLockCheck: system time
>> 
> min | max |     avg
> -----+-----+--------------
> 0 | 100 | 2.5095057034
>> 
>> Hm.  It doesn't seem that DeadLockCheck is taking very much of the time.

> Isn't the real time big ?

Yes, it sure is, but remember that the guy getting useful work done
(DeadLockCheck) is having to share the CPU with 999 other processes
that are waking up on every clock tick for just long enough to fail
to get the spinlock.  I think it's those useless process wakeups that
are causing the problem.

If you estimate that a process dispatch cycle is ~ 10 microseconds,
then waking 999 useless processes every 10 msec is just about enough
to consume 100% of the CPU doing nothing useful... so what should be
a few-millisecond check takes a long time, which makes things worse
because the 999 wannabees are spinning for that much more time.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Date:
Subject: Re: [OT] Any major users of postgresql?
Next
From: Hiroshi Inoue
Date:
Subject: Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users