You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When accessing the lock table, the local mutex is acquired first and only then the shared mutex is acquired. If all the connections belong to the single address space (SS and SC architectures), all the contention is on the local mutex, not on the shared mutex. But the local mutex "blocks" are not encounted in the statistics, hence both "acquire blocks" and "mutex wait" counters will be always zero in this case, making it hard to analyze the possible performance bottlenecks (this is mostly true for SC, as SS is almost never LM bound).
Submitted by: @dyemanov
When accessing the lock table, the local mutex is acquired first and only then the shared mutex is acquired. If all the connections belong to the single address space (SS and SC architectures), all the contention is on the local mutex, not on the shared mutex. But the local mutex "blocks" are not encounted in the statistics, hence both "acquire blocks" and "mutex wait" counters will be always zero in this case, making it hard to analyze the possible performance bottlenecks (this is mostly true for SC, as SS is almost never LM bound).
Commits: 758bb0d 448f187
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: