Re: Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem.

On 2013-09-17 08:32:30 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2013-09-17 08:18:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> Do you think it's worth submitting the lock avoidance patch for formal review?
> >
> > You mean the bufmgr.c thing? Generally I think that that code needs a
> > good of scalability work - there's a whole thread about it
> > somewhere. But TBH the theories you've voiced about the issues you've
> > seen haven't convinced me so far.
>
> er, no (but I share your skepticism -- my challenge right now is to
> demonstrate measurable benefit which so far I've been unable to do).
> I was talking about the patch on  *this* thread which bypasses the
> s_lock in RecoveryInProgress()  :-).

Ah, yes. Sorry confused issues ;). Yes, I think that'd made sense.

> > Quick question: Do you happen to have pg_locks output from back then
> > around? We've recently found servers going into somewhat similar
> > slowdowns because they exhausted the fastpath locks which made lwlocks
> > far more expensive and made s_lock go up very high in the profle.
>
> I do. Unfortunately I don't have profile info.   Not sure how useful
> it is -- I'll send it off-list.

Great.

The primary thing I'd like to know is whether there are lots of
non-fastpath locks...

If you ever get into the situation I mistakenly referred to again, I'd
strongly suggest recompling postgres with -fno-omit-frame-pointer. That
makes hierarchical profiles actually useful which can help tremendously
with diagnosing issues like this...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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