| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kurt Roeckx <kurt(at)roeckx(dot)be> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Date: | 2005-09-12 00:54:44 |
| Message-ID: | 11083.1126486484@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kurt Roeckx <kurt(at)roeckx(dot)be> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:59:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I kinda suspect that the cmpb test is a no-op or loss on all
>> Intelish processors:
> I think an important question is wether this is for x86_64 in
> general, of opteron specific. It could be that it's not the same
> on Intel's EM64Ts.
Good point --- anyone have one to try?
> Something else to consider is the OS you're using. I've been
> told that Linux isn't that good in NUMA and FreeBSD might be
> better.
It's hard to see how the OS could affect behavior at the level of
processor cache operations --- unless they did something truly
spectacularly stupid, like mark main memory non-cacheable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-09-12 01:15:55 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-09-12 00:45:46 | Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues |