> 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.

Don't we back off the sleeps or was that code removed?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users at 2001-07-03 23:38:36 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users at 2001-07-04 03:16:24 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Harry Yau	Date: 2001-07-04 01:43:22
	Subject: WAL Question
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2001-07-04 00:58:42
	Subject: Re: UNDO and partially commited transactions