From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH]snmp6 64-bit counter support in proc.c Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:33:36 -0800 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040128113336.7a6cb77d.davem@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, mashirle@us.ibm.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, xma@us.ibm.com Return-path: To: Krishna Kumar In-Reply-To: Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:19:36 -0800 Krishna Kumar 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?