Re: lazy vxid locks, v1
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: lazy vxid locks, v1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16711.1307975368@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: lazy vxid locks, v1 (Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: lazy vxid locks, v1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes: > On 06/12/2011 11:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Profiling reveals that the system spends enormous amounts of CPU time >> in s_lock. > just to reiterate that with numbers - at 160 threads with both patches > applied the profile looks like: > samples % image name symbol name > 828794 75.8662 postgres s_lock Do you know exactly which spinlocks are being contended on here? The next few entries > 51672 4.7300 postgres LWLockAcquire > 51145 4.6817 postgres LWLockRelease > 17636 1.6144 postgres GetSnapshotData suggest that it might be the ProcArrayLock as a result of a huge amount of snapshot-fetching, but this is very weak evidence for that theory. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: