Damien Zammit, le sam. 22 juil. 2023 04:50:50 +0000, a ecrit:
> db{0}> show all slocks
>
> SUCCESS FAIL MASKED STACK TIME LOCK/CALLER
> 47082 0/0 47082/100 0/0 413940/8 0xc1098f54(c11847c8)
> 2 0/0 2/100 0/0 413940/206970 0x6ede(c11966e0)
> 47139 0/0 0/0 2106/0 4670/0 0xc119edec(f5e409b0)
> 132895 3/0 3372/2 1/0 4580/0 0xc118a590(c118a9d4)
> 118313 0/0 2/0 0/0 3660/0 0xc1098ec4(c1189f80)
> 183233 1/0 1714/0 2/0 2290/0 0xc1098e54(c118aa8c)
> 14357 0/0 0/0 1878/0 1200/0 0xf52a4de0(f5e40a60)
> 14345 0/0 0/0 18/0 1200/0 0xf52a4dec(f528f488)
So there are very few failures, the lock contention is not the problem.
> 16910 total locks, 0 empty buckets
> 2220850 455/0 485391/21 11549793/5 879030/0
> 0xc10a4580(c10a4580)
Note that this is measuring locate_lock_info, whose hashing might not be
very good?
Also, is cpu_number() really cheap?
Samuel
