Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2005-09-12T00:54:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 05:59:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I kinda suspect that the cmpb test is a no-op or loss on all >> Intelish processors: > I think an important question is wether this is for x86_64 in > general, of opteron specific. It could be that it's not the same > on Intel's EM64Ts. Good point --- anyone have one to try? > Something else to consider is the OS you're using. I've been > told that Linux isn't that good in NUMA and FreeBSD might be > better. It's hard to see how the OS could affect behavior at the level of processor cache operations --- unless they did something truly spectacularly stupid, like mark main memory non-cacheable. regards, tom lane