> 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
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|