Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Date
Msg-id CEAB3A3D-FD33-4AB9-BDD3-FC0E20776245@anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On December 25, 2015 7:10:23 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Васильев Дмитрий
><d.vasilyev@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> ��� Samples: 1M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.):
>816922259995, UID:
>> pgpro
>>   Overhead  Shared Object       Symbol
>
>>   69,72%  [kernel]            [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>>   1,43%  postgres            [.] _bt_compare
>>    1,19%  postgres            [.] LWLockAcquire
>>    0,99%  postgres            [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
>>    0,61%  postgres            [.] PinBuffer
>
>Seems like what you've got here is a kernel bug.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a kernel bug. Were still doing 300k tps. And were triggering the performance
degradationby adding another socket (IIRC) to the poll(2) call.
 

It certainly be interesting to see the expanded tree below the spinlock. I wonder if this is related to directed
wakeups.

Andres

--- 
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794