From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: Krishna Kumar <kumarkr@us.ibm.com>
Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, mashirle@us.ibm.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com,
xma@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]snmp6 64-bit counter support in proc.c
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:33:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040128113336.7a6cb77d.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFB07FA138.DADDB14B-ON88256E29.00692BAE@us.ibm.com>
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:19:36 -0800
Krishna Kumar <kumarkr@us.ibm.com> wrote:
[ ... idea to use seq locks ]
> Does that sound better ?
Well, I thought the goal was to move the expensive part of doing
this out of the writers, which we assume will exceed readers.
Seq locks favor readers, and assume that the write is the less
common operation.
Putting seq locks around every stat counter bump is going to plump
up the code a lot.
Maybe your idea and original assumption are fine, in essence we live
with this now, don't we? :-)
Perhaps there are some better ideas?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-28 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-28 19:19 [PATCH]snmp6 64-bit counter support in proc.c Krishna Kumar
2004-01-28 19:33 ` David S. Miller [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-28 20:15 Shirley Ma
2004-01-28 20:09 Shirley Ma
2004-01-23 18:06 Shirley Ma
2004-01-23 2:57 Krishna Kumar
2004-01-23 2:45 Krishna Kumar
2004-01-28 19:09 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-23 1:08 Shirley Ma
2004-01-23 1:43 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-22 22:50 Krishna Kumar
2004-01-23 0:35 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-22 21:18 Krishna Kumar
2004-01-22 22:10 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-21 23:44 Shirley Ma
2004-01-21 19:45 Shirley Ma
2004-01-21 20:27 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2004-01-21 22:05 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-22 18:26 ` kuznet
2003-12-05 21:55 Shirley Ma
2003-12-02 12:40 IPv6 MIB:ipv6PrefixTable implementation kuznet
2003-12-05 20:14 ` [PATCH]snmp6 64-bit counter support in proc.c Shirley Ma
2003-12-05 20:31 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-14 22:52 ` Shirley Ma
2004-01-15 8:57 ` David S. Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040128113336.7a6cb77d.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=kumarkr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=mashirle@us.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=xma@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).