Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-13 17:38:08
Message-ID: 25267.1126633088@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> writes:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> What Tom found was that some processes are never scheduled when sched_yield is
>> called. There's no reason that should be happening.

> Yeah, that would probably be a bug...

I suspect the kernel hackers might consider it deliberate in a
NUMA-aware kernel.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2005-09-13 18:34:31 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Mark Wong 2005-09-13 17:32:42 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches