| From: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
| Cc: | swampler(at)noao(dot)edu, Postgres-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Threads |
| Date: | 2003-01-23 19:50:03 |
| Message-ID: | 3E30476B.9050303@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Copeland wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 09:12, Steve Wampler wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also remember that in even well developed OS's like FreeBSD, all a
>>>process's threads will execute only on one CPU.
>>>
>>>
>>I doubt that - it certainly isn't the case on Linux and Solaris.
>>A thread may *start* execution on the same CPU as it's parent, but
>>native threads are not likely to be constrained to a specific CPU
>>with an SMP OS.
>>
>>
>
>You are correct. When spawning additional threads, should an idle CPU
>be available, it's very doubtful that the new thread will show any bias
>toward the original thread's CPU. Most modern OS's do run each thread
>within a process spread across n-CPUs. Those that don't are probably
>attempting to modernize as we speak
>
AFAIK, FreeBSD is one of the OSes that are trying to modernize. Last I
looked it did not have kernel threads.
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | D. Hageman | 2003-01-23 20:45:30 | [PATCH] psql visibility clarification patch |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-01-23 19:06:29 | Re: ECPG, threading and pooling |