Igor Kovalenko wrote:
> Does that mean I should redo patch for 7.3 as is, or you guys want it to
> go farther this time? The last version had compromises intended to make
> changes minimal...
>
> Also, does anyone from Darwin or BeOS camp care? You guys should not be
> working through emulation o
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Igor Kovalenko
> > Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 1:31 AM
> > To: Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [HACKERS] bad performance on irix
> >
> >
>
; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Igor Kovalenko
> > Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 1:31 AM
> > To: Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [HACKERS] bad performance on ir
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: [HACKERS] bad performance on irix
>
>
> No, I've been told it is not gonna be considered for 7.2x and I shall
> wait till 7.3.
>
> Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
> >
> > >
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
> No, I've been told it is not gonna be considered for 7.2x and I shall
> wait till 7.3.
>
> Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
> >
> > > Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> > > at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am
No, I've been told it is not gonna be considered for 7.2x and I shall
wait till 7.3.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
>
> > Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> > at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
> > POSIX mutexes might be
I've done some meditions with timex, it uses sar(System activity register)
to take workloads, it's not very relliable, but it allow us to see how it is
been doing, it has been taken during an execution of a like tpc-h
benchmark, it performs inserts, deletes(about 5% of the time of the
execution)
> Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
> POSIX mutexes might be quite a bit faster than SYSV semaphores.
>
Is there any current patch?
Regards
---(end of broadcast
Okay. Anyway, the semaphores are apparently used for purposes other than
TAS. That can be made faster too, on platforms which support POSIX
mutexes (shared between processes).
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote:
>
> Dear Igor,
>
> > I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
> > i
Dear Igor,
> I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
> instruction ;)
On the SGI platform, there are very high speed implementations of test
and set which allow large number of processes to safely and quickly
access shared memory. SGI has a hardware team that specifies MIP
I am confused to hell. I always thought MIPS does NOT have TAS
instruction ;)
"Robert E. Bruccoleri" wrote:
>
> Dear Igor,
>
> Igor Kovalenko writes:
>
> > Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> > at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am a
Dear Igor,
Igor Kovalenko writes:
> Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
> at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
> POSIX mutexes might be quite a bit faster than SYSV semaphores.
Yes, but on the SGI platform, the MIPS test_and_se
Makes me wonder... perhaps now someone will be convinced to take a look
at the POSIX IPC patch. On some platforms (not on Linux I am afraid)
POSIX mutexes might be quite a bit faster than SYSV semaphores.
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro wrote:
>
> Hi all:
> again on performance, here is an extract fr
Hi all:
again on performance, here is an extract from an 8 read-only queries, notice
that total time is 179s and it is expending about 80secs only in semaphores
Isn't there any other way to improve ipc-locks?
thanks and regards.
---(end of broadcast)--
iginal Message -
> From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert E. Bruccoleri"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:36 PM
"Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwards:
>> It's using the spinlocks
>> for some locks, but semaphores for others.
That doesn't make any sense to me. For one thing, if HAS_TEST_AND_SET
is defined in the config header, the executable will just plain fail to
build if there's no t
- Original Message -
From: "Robert E. Bruccoleri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] bad performance on irix
> Dear Luis,
> >
> > Dear Bob:
> > I've removed ifdefs from s_lock.h trying if s
17 matches
Mail list logo
