Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-16 16:40:25
Message-ID: 200509160940.26337.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

> What I think this means is that the kernel is scheduling the 2 processes
> onto 2 processors chosen-at-random, without awareness of whether those
> two processors are on the same chip (in the Xeon case) or have closer
> NUMA affinity (in the Opteron case).

That would be consistent with my experience with HT, and the reason why many
software vendors recommend disabling it. Not sure about NUMA.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-09-16 16:46:11 Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-09-16 16:39:25 Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages?