Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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