Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:31 -0400
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc:        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, performance@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: [HACKERS] Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?
Message-ID:  <20070410222831.GA75767@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <4307.1176243997@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References:  <20070226002234.GA80974@xor.obsecurity.org> <461B69C0.4060707@paradise.net.nz> <20070410184304.GB44123@xor.obsecurity.org> <3721.1176240977@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20070410220923.GA74088@xor.obsecurity.org> <4307.1176243997@sss.pgh.pa.us>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:26:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:36:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Anyway I'd be interested to know what the test case is, and which PG
> >> version you were testing.
>=20
> > I used 8.2 (and some older version when I first noticed it a year ago)
> > and either sysbench or supersmack will show it - presumably anything
> > that makes simultaneous queries.  Just instrument sleepq_broadcast()
> > to e.g. log a KTR event when it wakes more than 1 process and you'll
> > see it happening.
>=20
> Sorry, I'm not much of a BSD kernel hacker ... but sleepq_broadcast
> seems a rather generic name.  Is that called *only* from semop?

It's part of how wakeup() is implemented.

> I'm wondering if you are seeing simultaneous wakeup from some other
> cause --- sleep timeout being the obvious possibility.  We are aware
> of behaviors (search the PG lists for "context swap storm") where a
> number of backends will all fail to get a spinlock and do short usleep
> or select-timeout waits.  In this situation they'd all wake up at the
> next scheduler clock tick ...

Nope, it's not this.

Kris

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFGHA+PWry0BWjoQKURAo2KAKCc7vY5gceTDKOIVm7/jjLD6PrWVwCg6XrM
fEXzN+sfe/MtkOx61CjEG9g=
=RBAk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070410222831.GA75767>