Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:18:37 +0200 From: Gabor PALI <pgj@FreeBSD.org> To: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r209119 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <AANLkTikkDxOPhiA_NYmwO_Bpxb9g2M7UGRpBW85dBN_I@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4A28A601-C87F-47C6-8CBE-5F1BF866CA4A@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C376B0E.9050505@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007091949170.94277@fledge.watson.org> <4C37713D.5060202@FreeBSD.org> <4A28A601-C87F-47C6-8CBE-5F1BF866CA4A@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert N. M. Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote: > If we can do it in one atomic in the common case, and two atomics in an e= dge case, that sounds fine. I think any use of locking(9) would be sufficie= ntly costly as to not be worth the improvements in consistency, given the f= requency of statistics operations. I have tried to use atomic operations for counting (without locking(9)), but they turned out to be significantly slower than the naive case indeed. If consistency is not so important for statistics, whether would it be safe to simply use 64-bit variables for counters everywhere on all architectures? :g
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikkDxOPhiA_NYmwO_Bpxb9g2M7UGRpBW85dBN_I>