From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
Date: | 2004-08-24 06:09:17 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0408241539420.27701@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > Chris <list(at)1006(dot)org> writes:
> > > I've compiled 8.0 beta 1 on a R5900 V3.1 (a playstation 2) running
> > > Linux (PS2 Linux 1) for portability testing.
> > > ...
> > > I'm wondering: would it be hard to fix the assembly spinlock code
> > > for the R5900?
> >
> > According to the previous port report from Red Hat, the PS2 chip simply
> > doesn't have any user-space TAS instruction, so you're pretty much stuck.
> > If you can find something that works, let us know.
>
> Out of curiosity. If it lacks a tas instruction, is there really any smp
> implementation that runs on it? Why would postgres want spinlocks at all with
> only one processor?
Errm. Even if we have only one CPU it doesn't mean instructions which
read/write to shared resources in a *multiprocess* environment will be
serialized in the way we want. In fact, its highly unlikely that they
will. If you want to test, make TAS() a noop and see how quickly
things are corrupted in shared memory :-)
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-08-24 06:18:10 | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-24 06:00:10 | Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 |