Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:40:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)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.

I have access to a 4-way Opteron 852 running Solaris 10. What patches
would you like me to test?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461