Re: slow startup due to LWLockAssign() spinlock

On 2014-04-16 19:33:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:58:49AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-02-03 11:22:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > > On larger, multi-socket, machines, startup takes a fair bit of time. As
> > > > I was profiling anyway I looked into it and noticed that just about all
> > > > of it is spent in LWLockAssign() called by InitBufferPool(). Starting
> > > > with shared_buffers=48GB on the server Nate Boley provided, takes about
> > > > 12 seconds. Nearly all of it spent taking the ShmemLock spinlock.
> > > > Simply modifying LWLockAssign() to not take the spinlock when
> > > > !IsUnderPostmaster speeds it up to 2 seconds. While certainly not making
> > > > LWLockAssign() prettier it seems enough of a speedup to be worthwile
> > > > nonetheless.
> > >
> > > Hm. This patch only works if the postmaster itself never assigns any
> > > LWLocks except during startup. That's *probably* all right, but it
> > > seems a bit scary. Is there any cheap way to make the logic actually
> > > be what your comment claims, namely "Interlocking is not necessary during
> > > postmaster startup"? I guess we could invent a ShmemInitInProgress global
> > > flag ...
> >
> > So, here's a flag implementing things with that flag. I kept your name,
> > as it's more in line with ipci.c's naming, but it looks kinda odd
> > besides proc_exit_inprogress.
>
> Uh, where are we on this?

I guess it's waiting for the next CF :(.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services