| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "D(dot) Hageman" <dhageman(at)dracken(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Date: | 2001-09-29 03:41:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200109290341.f8T3fIv02616@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Save for the fact that the kernel can switch between threads faster then
> > > it can switch processes considering threads share the same address space,
> > > stack, code, etc. If need be sharing the data between threads is much
> > > easier then sharing between processes.
> >
> > Just a clarification but because we fork each backend, don't they share
> > the same code space? Data/stack is still separate.
>
> In Linux and many modern UNIX programs, you share everything at fork time. The
> data and stack pages are marked "copy on write" which means that if you touch
> it, the processor traps and drops into the memory manager code. A new page is
> created and replaced into your address space where the page, to which you were
> going to write, was.
Yes, very true. My point was that backends already share code space and
non-modified data space. It is just modified data and stack that is
non-shared, but then again, they would have to be non-shared in a
threaded backend too.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2001-09-29 04:28:43 | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2001-09-29 03:26:32 | Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal |