Re: making use of large TLB pages - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: making use of large TLB pages
Date
Msg-id 200209291338.g8TDcRE06330@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: making use of large TLB pages  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: making use of large TLB pages  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >     Is TLB Linux-only?
> 
> Well, the "TLB" is a feature of the CPU, so no. Many modern processors
> support large TLB pages in some fashion.
> 
> However, the specific API for using large TLB pages differs between
> operating systems. The API I'm planning to implement is the one
> provided by recent versions of Linux (2.5.38+).
> 
> I've only looked briefly at enabling the usage of large pages on other
> operating systems. On Solaris, we already use large pages (due to
> using Intimate Shared Memory). On HPUX, you apparently need call
> chattr on the executable for it to use large pages. AFAIK the BSDs
> don't support large pages for user-land apps -- if I'm incorrect, let
> me know.
> 
> >     Why use it and non SysV memory?
> 
> It's faster, at least in theory. I posted these links at the start of
> the thread:
> 
>         http://lwn.net/Articles/6535/
>         http://lwn.net/Articles/10293/
> 
> >     Is it a lot of code?
> 
> I haven't implemented it yet, so I'm not sure. However, I don't think
> it will be a lot of code.

OK, personally, I would like to see an actual speedup of PostgreSQL
queries before I would apply such a OS-specific, version-specific patch.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_config : postgresql.conf adjustments?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.2.3?