From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | 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: | 2001-07-03 23:30:16 |
Message-ID: | 3B425588.1B21E00A@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I added some codes into HandleDeadLock to measure how long
> > LockLockTable and DeadLOckCheck calls take. Followings are the result
> > in running pgbench -c 1000 (it failed with stuck spin lock
> > error). "real time" shows how long they actually run (using
> > gettimeofday). "user time" and "system time" are measured by calling
> > getrusage. The time unit is milli second.
>
> > LockLockTable: real time
>
> > min | max | avg
> > -----+--------+-------------------
> > 0 | 867873 | 152874.9015151515
>
[snip]
>
> > DeadLockCheck: real time
>
> > min | max | avg
> > -----+-------+-----------------
> > 0 | 87671 | 3463.6996197719
>
> > DeadLockCheck: user time
>
> > min | max | avg
> > -----+-----+---------------
> > 0 | 330 | 14.2205323194
>
> > DeadLockCheck: system time
>
> > min | max | avg
> > -----+-----+--------------
> > 0 | 100 | 2.5095057034
>
> Hm. It doesn't seem that DeadLockCheck is taking very much of the time.
Isn't the real time big ?
Isn't 14.22msec big enough for the spinlocking process to
pass the time slice to other processes ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-03 23:38:36 | Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users |
Previous Message | Nathan Myers | 2001-07-03 22:59:34 | Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug |