Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900
| От | Neil Conway |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 412B69D8.20206@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900
Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Associating such a thing with spinlocks seems certain to be a dead loss, > as the amount of time we normally hold a spinlock is much less than the > time to make one kernel call, let alone two. Yeah, I was thinking about this. ISTM the only way that Sun would bother to provide an API like this is if it had significantly less overhead than a standard system call. Anyway, I'll take a closer look. > On the count-the-number-of-CPUs patch, what sort of coverage are you > expecting to get? I haven't yet seen a platform that doesn't provide some means to get the # of CPUs, but I suppose there might be one... -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: