From owner-freebsd-bugs  Thu Feb  6  8:50:14 2003
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AD137B401
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 08:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089D743FB1
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 08:50:13 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h16GoCNS021588
	for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:50:12 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h16GoCgn021587;
	Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200302061650.h16GoCgn021587@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Cc: 
From: Arun Sharma <arun@sharma-home.net>
Subject: Re: kern/18524: The current kernel doesn't keep stats on a per c
Reply-To: Arun Sharma <arun@sharma-home.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-bugs.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-bugs>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-bugs>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

The following reply was made to PR kern/18524; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Arun Sharma <arun@sharma-home.net>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/18524: The current kernel doesn't keep stats on a per c
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:50:49 -0800

 On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:13:15AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
 > > and submit a new patch:
 > > 
 > > http://www.sharma-home.net/~adsharma/misc/pcpu-cptime.patch
 > 
 > [...]
 >
 > Why not stick the cp_time stuff in struct pcpu instead of using an
 > array?
 
 The new patch _is_ putting cp_time in struct pcpu. The old patch in the PR
 predates struct pcpu.
 
 I also chose to leave the existing cp_time alone. One could argue that a user
 level tool could sum up the pcpu cp_times to derive the cp_time and
 the kernel can avoid dirtying an extra cache line. If people feel
 strongly about it, I can skip touching cp_time in the SMP case. It's a
 choice between compatibility with UP vs performance.
 
 	-Arun

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message