Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Date: 2015-12-25 18:20:26
Message-ID: CEAB3A3D-FD33-4AB9-BDD3-FC0E20776245@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On December 25, 2015 7:10:23 PM GMT+01:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>=?UTF-8?B?0JLQsNGB0LjQu9GM0LXQsiDQlNC80LjRgtGA0LjQuQ==?=
><d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> ��� Samples: 1M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.):
>816922259995, UID:
>> pgpro
>> Overhead Shared Object Symbol
>
>> 69,72% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>> 1,43% postgres [.] _bt_compare
>> 1,19% postgres [.] LWLockAcquire
>> 0,99% postgres [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
>> 0,61% postgres [.] PinBuffer
>
>Seems like what you've got here is a kernel bug.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a kernel bug. Were still doing 300k tps. And were triggering the performance degradation by adding another socket (IIRC) to the poll(2) call.

It certainly be interesting to see the expanded tree below the spinlock. I wonder if this is related to directed wakeups.

Andres

---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-12-25 18:28:55 Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-12-25 18:10:23 Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794