From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com, Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Date: | 2005-09-17 04:41:12 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0509171440520.32213@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Greg Stark (gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
> >> However I was under the impression that 2.6 had moved beyond that problem.
> >> It would be very interesting to know if 2.6 still suffers from this.
>
> > The tests on the em64t at my place were using 2.6.12. I had thought 2.6
> > was better about this too, but I don't have another explanation for it.
>
> The 4-way Opteron I've been using at Red Hat is running
> 2.6.12-1.1398_FC4smp (Fedora Core 4 obviously). Red Hat in particular
> has been working hard in this area, and I thought that their recent
> kernels included NUMA fixes that weren't yet accepted upstream (at least
> not in the stable kernel branches). But it seems there's still a ways
> to go yet.
>
> It'd be real interesting to see comparable numbers from some non-Linux
> kernels, particularly commercial systems like Solaris.
Did you see the Solaris results I posted?
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-17 04:59:24 | Re: Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-17 04:31:41 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |