On 06/05/2011 09:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05.06.2011 22:04, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> and one for the -j80 case(also patched).
>>
>>
>> 485798 48.9667 postgres s_lock
>> 60327 6.0808 postgres LWLockAcquire
>> 57049 5.7503 postgres LWLockRelease
>> 18357 1.8503 postgres hash_search_with_hash_value
>> 17033 1.7169 postgres GetSnapshotData
>> 14763 1.4881 postgres base_yyparse
>> 14460 1.4575 postgres SearchCatCache
>> 13975 1.4086 postgres AllocSetAlloc
>> 6416 0.6467 postgres PinBuffer
>> 5024 0.5064 postgres SIGetDataEntries
>> 4704 0.4741 postgres core_yylex
>> 4625 0.4662 postgres _bt_compare
>
> Hmm, does that mean that it's spending 50% of the time spinning on a
> spinlock? That's bad. It's one thing to be contended on a lock, and have
> a lot of idle time because of that, but it's even worse to spend a lot
> of time spinning because that CPU time won't be spent on doing more
> useful work, even if there is some other process on the system that
> could make use of that CPU time.
well yeah - we are broken right now with only being able to use ~20% of
CPU on a modern mid-range box, but using 80% CPU (or 4x like in the
above case) and only getting less than 2x the performance seems wrong as
well. I also wonder if we are still missing something fundamental -
because even with the current patch we are quite far away from linear
scaling and light-years from some of our competitors...
Stefan
