Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users
Date: 2001-07-04 03:16:24
Message-ID: 26839.994216584@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> 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...

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

Not enough to affect this calculation.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-07-04 03:29:36
Subject: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2001-07-04 01:52:08
Subject: RE: [OT] Any major users of postgresql?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group