| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kurt Roeckx <kurt(at)roeckx(dot)be>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
| Date: | 2005-09-12 01:15:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20050912011555.GE6026@ns.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <kurt(at)roeckx(dot)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?
I've got one I can test on. I need to upgrade the kernel and some other
things on it though (it's running 2.6.8 atm, and an older
Debian/unstable which I should probably bring up to current).
I'll work on it starting now and post results once I get some.
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-09-12 01:21:14 | Re: -fPIC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-12 00:54:44 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |