![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Jeff wrote: > > > I now realize, that locking is out of the question. Also, it has been > > Well spinlocks in particular would be particularly ugly here and cause > horrid cache line ping pong. Other methods of synchronization would have > to be looked at. > > > suggested to use per cpu stats and overflow into a global counter. (Thanks > > Zwane) This might be a better idea - the problem is, the counter won't be > > 100% accurate at all times. The degree of inaccuracy will vary with the > > threshold value. On the other hand, if the threshold is relatively low, no > > one will notice the difference these days. > > This would be one method of doing updates and for stats it would be fine, > however feel free to look into other ways... Looking closer i'd say go for it, there isn't a real locking issue, if you're looking for something to do this should be rather fun with not that much breakage, of course you'd also have to update some userland tools/utilities. have fun, Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||