Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead

From: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo(at)atc(dot)unican(dot)es>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <bruc(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead
Date: 2002-07-30 15:23:53
Message-ID: 010901c237dd$1e12bdc0$cab990c1@atc.unican.es
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: <bruc(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>; <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>
> We would have to understand how the SGI code is better than our existing
> code on SMP machines.
>

I've been searching for data from SGI's Origin presentation to illustrate
what am I saying, this graph only covers Memory bandwith, but take present
that as distance between nodes increase, memory access latency is also
increased:

Attachment Content-Type Size
image/png 26.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-07-30 15:25:37 Re: Weird manual page
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-07-30 15:23:17 Re: Password sub-process ...