Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 11083.1126486484@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches (Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:59:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I kinda suspect that the cmpb test is a no-op or loss on all
>> Intelish processors:
> I think an important question is wether this is for x86_64 in
> general, of opteron specific. It could be that it's not the same
> on Intel's EM64Ts.
Good point --- anyone have one to try?
> 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.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: