From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Toppins Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next] tuntap: convert to 64-bit interface statistics Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:52:04 -0400 Message-ID: <550B6124.7070001@cumulusnetworks.com> References: <1426794689-29943-1-git-send-email-jtoppins@cumulusnetworks.com> <1426801109.25985.8.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <550B4619.6020203@cumulusnetworks.com> <1426805764.25985.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Curt Brune To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]:34970 "EHLO mail-qg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbbCSXwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:52:05 -0400 Received: by qgew92 with SMTP id w92so4646956qge.2 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:52:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1426805764.25985.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/19/15 6:56 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 17:56 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote: > > >> Or are you suggesting per-cpu counters would be preferred which would >> possibly eliminate the need for this lock? > > Might be overkill for a device that is probably used by one cpu, > considering you defined a full struct rtnl_link_stats64, instead of the > fields that are really handled. > Ok. So summarizing for v2, so far; eliminating the back-to-back lock -> release -> lock -> release is preferred (I agree with this). It still seems like you are not a huge fan of the additional lock, should I hold off on sending v2 for a day, so we can ponder alternatives?