From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Let's make PostgreSQL multi-threaded |
Date: | 2023-06-08 14:33:26 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMvXmjz=6r7Yf0yxHX-mzy60DPqoVB8K1b7COEBJKiZLg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 18:09, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Having the same memory mapping between threads makes allows the
> hardware to share the TLB (on x86 via process context identifiers), which
> isn't realistically possible with different processes.
As a matter of historical interest Solaris actually did implement this
across different processes. It was called by the somewhat unfortunate
name "Intimate Shared Memory". I don't think Linux ever implemented
anything like it but I'm not sure.
I think this was not so much about cache hit rate but about just sheer
wasted memory in page mappings. So I guess hugepages more or less
target the same issues. But I find it interesting that they were
already running into issues like this 20 years ago -- presumably those
issues have only grown.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-06-08 14:35:26 | Re: Error in calculating length of encoded base64 string |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2023-06-08 14:31:05 | Re: Named Prepared statement problems and possible solutions |