Re: Erroneous PPC spinlock code

From: Reinhard Max <max(at)suse(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marcus Meissner <meissner(at)suse(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Erroneous PPC spinlock code
Date: 2003-11-05 23:08:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0311060005390.25923-100000@wotan.suse.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 at 13:28, Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>
> > The SuSE PPC guru said that the PPC spinlock code we currently use
> > may behave erroneously on multiprocessor systems.
>
> What's his evidence for that claim?

Let's ask himself.

> The code we have is based directly on the recommendations in the PPC
> manuals, and has been tested on multi-CPU systems.

Marcus, can you explain the details, please?

cu
Reinhard

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-11-05 23:10:37 Re: [HACKERS] Changes to Contributor List
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2003-11-05 22:55:56 Re: Very poor estimates from planner