Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900
Date
Msg-id 412B69D8.20206@samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Associating such a thing with spinlocks seems certain to be a dead loss,
> as the amount of time we normally hold a spinlock is much less than the
> time to make one kernel call, let alone two.

Yeah, I was thinking about this. ISTM the only way that Sun would bother 
to provide an API like this is if it had significantly less overhead 
than a standard system call. Anyway, I'll take a closer look.

> On the count-the-number-of-CPUs patch, what sort of coverage are you
> expecting to get?

I haven't yet seen a platform that doesn't provide some means to get the 
# of CPUs, but I suppose there might be one...

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.0 beta 1 on linux-mipsel R5900
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: debuging postgres