Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current)

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current)
Date: 2023-02-06 23:46:12
Message-ID: a29d18fe-f5d1-f367-3ec1-5c6bb333f158@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/6/23 20:20, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-06 19:51:19 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> No. The only thing the machine is doing is
>>>
>>> while /usr/bin/true; do
>>> make check
>>> done
>>>
>>> I can't reduce the workload further, because the "join" test is in a
>>> separate parallel group (I cut down parallel_schedule). I could make the
>>> machine busier, of course.
>>>
>>> However, the other lockup I saw was when using serial_schedule, so I
>>> guess lower concurrency makes it more likely.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW the machine is now on run ~2700 without any further lockups :-/
>>
>> Seems it was quite lucky we hit it twice in a handful of attempts.
>
> Did you cut down the workload before you reproduced it the first time, or
> after? It's quite possible that it's not reproducible in isolation.
>

No, I left the workload as it was for the first lockup, so `make check`
runs everything as is up until the "join" test suite.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2023-02-06 23:48:38 Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-02-06 23:46:11 Re: gokiburi versus the back branches