Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] spin locks

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker)
Cc: dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] spin locks
Date: 1998-03-16 05:08:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > 	I'm not quite sure I follow a multi-cpu environment,
> > > would process_yield() introduce a problem? *raised eyebrow*
> > 
> > Probably.  I would leave the code as-is for multi-cpu systems.
> would we determine which is which? *raised eyebrow*
> > Yep, but we need to check for multiple cpu's first before enabling it. 
> > That would be a good trick from configure.
> 	I'm curious, still, as to whether this function would help
> performance on a multi-cpu environment as well...what if 2 processes are
> running on one of two CPUs, and another 2 on the other? *raised eyebrow*

Good point.  You would almost need to know if the one holding the lock
was currently running.  But it wouldn't be un-runnable while it was
holding the spinlock, so it should be run-able, even if it is not
currently running.

Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-16 05:09:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] General Bug Report: palloc fails with lots of ANDs and ORs
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-03-16 04:59:32
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some cleanups/enhancements

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group