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
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.... |