From: Anton Blanchard <anton@linuxcare.com.au>
To: Jonathan Lahr <lahr@sequent.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel lock contention and scalability
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:26:29 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010311172629.D1951@linuxcare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010215104656.A6856@w-lahr.des.sequent.com> <20010305113807.A3917@linuxcare.com> <20010306144552.G6451@w-lahr.des.sequent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010306144552.G6451@w-lahr.des.sequent.com>; from lahr@sequent.com on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 02:45:52PM -0800
Hi,
> Thanks for looking into postgresql/pgbench related locking. Yes,
> apparently postgresql uses a synchronization scheme that uses select()
> to effect delays for backing off while attempting to acquire a lock.
> However, it seems to me that runqueue lock contention was not entirely due
> to postgresql code, since it was largely alleviated by the multiqueue
> scheduler patch.
Im not saying that the multiqueue scheduler patch isn't needed, just that
this test case is caused by a bug in postgres. We shouldn't run around
fixing symptoms - dropping the contention in the runqueue lock might not
change the overall performance of the benchmark, on the other hand
fixing the spinlocks in postgres probably will.
On the other hand, if postgres still pounds on the runqueue lock after
the bug has been fixed then we need to look at the multiqueue patch.
Cheers,
Anton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-11 6:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-15 18:46 kernel lock contention and scalability Jonathan Lahr
2001-02-25 9:52 ` Manfred Spraul
2001-03-05 18:41 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-03-05 0:38 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-03-06 22:45 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-03-06 23:39 ` Matthew Kirkwood
2001-03-07 0:28 ` Tim Wright
2001-03-07 3:12 ` Jeff Dike
2001-03-07 22:13 ` Tim Wright
2001-03-08 23:26 ` Jeff Dike
2001-03-11 6:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-03-11 6:26 ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
[not found] <98454d$19p9h$1@fido.engr.sgi.com>
2001-03-07 2:55 ` Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan
2001-03-07 5:48 ` Jeff Dike
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010311172629.D1951@linuxcare.com \
--to=anton@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=lahr@sequent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox