Re: Rewrite sinval messaging to reduce contention - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Rewrite sinval messaging to reduce contention
Date
Msg-id 28501.1213853323@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rewrite sinval messaging to reduce contention  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
I wrote:
> ... enabling LWLOCK_STATS shows that the contention
> rate on the sinval locks is now completely negligible --- one block
> per thousand acquisitions on SInvalWriteLock, and less than one in
> 10000 on SInvalReadLock.  The vast majority of the LWLock contention
> now comes from WALInsertLock and the LockMgr locks:

>     Lock            # acquisitions    # times blocked

>     SInvalReadLock        6469840        380
>     SInvalWriteLock        240567        163
>     WALInsertLock        2388805        89142
>     LockMgr partition locks    8253142        177715

For comparison's sake I rebuilt CVS HEAD with LWLOCK_STATS enabled
and repeated the same test.  I got

    SInvalLock        81090044    505750
    WALInsertLock        2382254        62747
    LockMgr locks        10657480    171799

The change in sinval numbers is gratifying, but for awhile I didn't
believe these results because of the discrepancy in LockMgr acquisition
figures.  I think though that what we are seeing here is that CVS HEAD
has the reset-everyone-on-sinval-queue-overflow behavior, which results
in a whole lot of useless cache resets, which results in a lot of
unnecessary cache reloads, and every one of those requires taking
AccessShareLock on one or more system catalogs in order to suck the data
back in.  So the reduction in LockMgr traffic is explained by not doing
so many cache resets.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Rewrite sinval messaging to reduce contention
Next
From: Zoltan Boszormenyi
Date:
Subject: Re: posix advises ...