Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5220.1126935628@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches (Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> writes: > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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? Are you speaking of http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00715.php ? That doesn't seem directly relevant to the point, because it's for a 2-CPU machine; so there's no way to run a test case that uses more than one but less than all the processors. In either the "one" or "all" cases, performance ought to be pretty stable regardless of whether the kernel understands about any processor asymmetries that may exist in the hardware. Not to mention that I don't know of any asymmetries in a dual SPARC anyway. We really need to test this on comparable hardware, which I guess means we need Solaris/x86 on something with hyperthreading or known NUMA asymmetry. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: