From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 01:04:24 |
Message-ID: | 200107040104.f6414Oc09400@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Harry Yau | 2001-07-04 01:43:22 | WAL Question |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-04 00:58:42 | Re: UNDO and partially commited transactions |