Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kurt Roeckx <kurt(at)roeckx(dot)be>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-12 03:40:11
Message-ID: 87ll232btw.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> > Something else to consider is the OS you're using. I've been
> > told that Linux isn't that good in NUMA and FreeBSD might be
> > better.
>
> It's hard to see how the OS could affect behavior at the level of
> processor cache operations --- unless they did something truly
> spectacularly stupid, like mark main memory non-cacheable.

Well it could schedule processes on processors in ways that force less than
optimal memory usage patterns.

But maybe you should tell the Altix folk with their 32-processor 384Gb NUMA
machines what you've "been told" about Linux not being that good in NUMA.
Really, these kind of cargo cult anecdotes are pretty pointless.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2005-09-12 03:58:17 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2005-09-12 03:37:06 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches