Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:20:23 +0800 (WST) | From | The Thought Assassin <> | Subject | Re: Counting System Calls [patch] |
| |
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Sander van Malssen wrote: > > Do you think the counters should be 64 bits wide? They don't > > *need* to be 64 bits wide, because at current processor speeds it'll > > take a few hours to overflow, and a background process could read the > > entries out of /proc and fix up the problem in user space in that > > period. > I'd rather just have 'em 64 bits on 64 bit hardware, and 32 bits on 32 > bit hardware. Note that on my system, which admittedly isn't in heavy > use 24 hours a day, the *total* syscall count is always lower than the > IRQ 0 timer tick count, which is good for about 580 days on 32 bit > hardware, IIRC. (But it's true of course that the timer tick doesn't > speed up if the system's continuously in heavy use, as the syscall > counter will do.)
Mail I got today about a 2.0.33 machine:
(David Luyer wrote) > uptime: 122d 10:41:26.66 context : 2147483647 ^^^^^^^^^^ > (actually ctxt 2746346102 - the number of interrupts, 2722899210, also > exceeds 2^31)
7~he 7~hought /|ssassin
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |