Re: High SYS CPU - need advise
От | Jeff Janes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: High SYS CPU - need advise |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMkU=1w3fq_oEDPGd17BEK2bKFvsG3+TuEB7Vb7Gc8ikmK9ipA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: High SYS CPU - need advise (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: High SYS CPU - need advise
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 2000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 3000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 4000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 6000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 7000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 8000}) = 0 (Timeout) >>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 9000}) = 0 (Timeout) This is not entirely inconsistent with the spinlock. Note that 1000 is repeated 3 times, and 5000 is missing. This might just be a misleading random sample we got here. I've seen similar close spacing in some simulations I've run. It is not clear to me why we use a resolution of 1 msec here. If the OS's implementation of select() eventually rounds to the nearest msec, that is its business. But why do we have to lose intermediate precision due to its decision? Cheers, Jeff
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: