From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
---|---|
To: | swampler(at)noao(dot)edu |
Cc: | Postgres-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Threads |
Date: | 2003-01-23 18:02:21 |
Message-ID: | 1043344940.2714.4.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 09:12, Steve Wampler wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > Also remember that in even well developed OS's like FreeBSD, all a
> > process's threads will execute only on one CPU.
>
> I doubt that - it certainly isn't the case on Linux and Solaris.
> A thread may *start* execution on the same CPU as it's parent, but
> native threads are not likely to be constrained to a specific CPU
> with an SMP OS.
You are correct. When spawning additional threads, should an idle CPU
be available, it's very doubtful that the new thread will show any bias
toward the original thread's CPU. Most modern OS's do run each thread
within a process spread across n-CPUs. Those that don't are probably
attempting to modernize as we speak.
--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-23 18:10:17 | Re: Call for objections: put back OIDs in CREATE TABLE |
Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2003-01-23 17:58:14 | Re: Options for growth |