Re: lazy vxid locks, v1

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lazy vxid locks, v1
Date: 2011-06-13 15:06:46
Message-ID: BANLkTikQUPYMTvk1CS94kGb6t=PgKZDp2Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time
>>> in s_lock.
>
>> just to reiterate that with numbers - at 160 threads with both patches
>> applied the profile looks like:
>
>> samples  %        image name               symbol name
>> 828794   75.8662  postgres                 s_lock
>
> Do you know exactly which spinlocks are being contended on here?
> The next few entries
>
>> 51672     4.7300  postgres                 LWLockAcquire
>> 51145     4.6817  postgres                 LWLockRelease
>> 17636     1.6144  postgres                 GetSnapshotData
>
> suggest that it might be the ProcArrayLock as a result of a huge amount
> of snapshot-fetching, but this is very weak evidence for that theory.

I don't know for sure what is happening on Stefan's system, but I did
post the results of some research on this exact topic in my original
post.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-13 15:09:36 Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values''
Previous Message Dave Page 2011-06-13 15:01:32 Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix