Re: Solaris ISM Testing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "P(dot)J(dot) \"Josh\" Rovero" <rovero(at)sonalysts(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Solaris ISM Testing
Date: 2002-02-22 05:47:10
Message-ID: 14588.1014356830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The attached email shows that Solaris benefits from the ISM or Intimate
> Shared Memory setting during shmat() shared memory creation. It causes
> processes mapping the same shared memory to shared mapping pages _and_
> locks the pages in RAM.

Huh? I understand "locks the pages in RAM" but I don't understand the
first part of that. ISTM shared memory is shared memory; if we didn't
share it without this flag, we'd not be working at all on Solaris.

> I know many OS's lock shared memory in RAM anyway, or have OS parameters
> that control this (FreeBSD), but it seems Solaris does this on a per
> shmat() basis. Should we add this flag to shmat() calls for Solaris?

Certainly on any OS where we can request pinning our shmem in RAM, we
should do so --- I've pointed out before that allowing our disk buffers
to be swapped out can't be anything but counterproductive. Not sure
that this should be thought of as an "#ifdef SOLARIS" kind of change;
do any other Unixen share this aspect of the API?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-22 05:52:59 Re: Solaris ISM Testing
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-22 05:46:59 Re: Pls, apply patch....