Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Date: 2005-09-13 18:34:31
Message-ID: 20050913183431.GK6026@ns.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I'm feeling even more disenchanted with sched_yield now that Marko
> pointed out that the behavior was changed recently. Here we have a

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure 'recently' is quite the right word.
It sounds like it changed during the 2.5 development cycle; which was
between major kernel releases, and looks like it was around Dec, 2003.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-09-13 19:40:48 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-13 17:38:08 Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches