tracking context switches with perf record
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | tracking context switches with perf record |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ3bzMKrhXknDdqJMpw_7690Uc_Q6e_pwEKJ8FEVLqM=A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: tracking context switches with perf record
Re: tracking context switches with perf record Re: tracking context switches with perf record |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I've been playing around with "perf record" on the IBM POWER7 machine, and it's pretty cool. One of the things I don't like is that some of the tools don't produce very nice text reports that you can cut and paste into an email - it's kind of a text-based GUI where you can zoom around and look at things. Still, it's nice. One of the neat things I've just discovered is that you can use a call-graph report on context-switches to find out what user code is resulting in context-switching. For example, I ran a 32-client pgbench test at scale factor 300 for half an hour and captured data for 10 minutes relatively near the beginning. The partially expanded call tree for postgres looks like this: - 87.79% .schedule_timeout + 99.99% .unix_stream_recvmsg - 11.63% .SyS_semtimedop .SyS_ipc syscall_exit semop - PGSemaphoreLock - 98.48% LWLockAcquire - 53.11% XLogInsert + 48.39% heap_update + 18.15% heap_insert + 16.36% RecordTransactionCommit + 15.67% log_heap_clean + 0.98% _bt_insertonpg + 18.71%ProcArrayEndTransaction - 14.77% SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly TransactionIdGetStatus TransactionLogFetch - TransactionIdDidCommit + 53.52% HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum + 45.00% HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC + 0.82% HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid + 6.08% TransactionIdSetPageStatus + 2.63% LockBuffer + 1.92% GetSnapshotData + 1.51% SimpleLruReadPage + 1.52% ProcSleep + 0.50% do_work So what you can see here is that all the context switches that happened in postgres with the result either of a .schedule_timeout or a .SyS_semtimedop. 87.79% of the context switches came from .schedule_timeout, and 99.99% of those came from unix_stream_recvmsg. If you expand that branch of the call tree, you find that all of them are coming eventually from secure_read; the server is waiting for a new query from the client. This is, obviously, overhead we can't eliminate from this test; waiting for the client is part of the job. The other 11.63% of the context switches result from PGSemaphoreLock calling semop. Of those, 98.48% come from LWLockAcquire and 1.52% come from ProcSleep. The ProcSleep calls are all from blocking while attempting to acquire a heavyweight lock; and nearly all of them are from conflicting tuple locks. However, they account for such a small portion of the overall context switches that they're probably not worth worrying about. The more interesting waits, in my view anyway, are the ones that come from LWLockAcquire, which account for nearly all of the semaphore sleeps. As you can see, XLogInsert accounts for over half of those, and ProcArrayEndTransaction and SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly account for most of the rest. Just out of curiosity, I expanded a couple of those another level, and you can see what's going on there, too. I was slightly surprised by the number of calls to log_heap_clean, since I wouldn't have expected vacuuming to generate that much work; it turns out that 99.9% of those are HOT pruning events happening during query execution. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:
Предыдущее
От: Andrew DunstanДата:
Сообщение: Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)