Re: Solaris ISM Testing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Solaris ISM Testing
Date
Msg-id 200202220552.g1M5qxC27517@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Solaris ISM Testing  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The attached email shows that Solaris benefits from the ISM or Intimate
> > Shared Memory setting during shmat() shared memory creation.  It causes
> > processes mapping the same shared memory to shared mapping pages _and_
> > locks the pages in RAM.
> 
> Huh?  I understand "locks the pages in RAM" but I don't understand the
> first part of that.  ISTM shared memory is shared memory; if we didn't
> share it without this flag, we'd not be working at all on Solaris.

It shares the virtual page map tables as well as the actual RAM pages.

> > I know many OS's lock shared memory in RAM anyway, or have OS parameters
> > that control this (FreeBSD), but it seems Solaris does this on a per
> > shmat() basis.  Should we add this flag to shmat() calls for Solaris?
> 
> Certainly on any OS where we can request pinning our shmem in RAM, we
> should do so --- I've pointed out before that allowing our disk buffers
> to be swapped out can't be anything but counterproductive.  Not sure
> that this should be thought of as an "#ifdef SOLARIS" kind of change;
> do any other Unixen share this aspect of the API?

Yes, #ifdef SOLARIS.  I am waiting from a patch from the reporter.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Solaris ISM Testing
Next
From: Jean-Michel POURE
Date:
Subject: Re: [ODBC] UTF-8 data migration problem in Postgresql 7.2