Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:12:42 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Subject: Re: When to use atomic_ functions? (was: 64 bit counters) Message-ID: <200201030012.g030Cgp60752@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.020102152920.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200201030002.g0302Eo60575@apollo.backplane.com> <20020102180734.A82406@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> Maybe we are going about this all wrong. If a particular interface
:> counter can only be modified from the device interrupt, or only be
:> modified while holding the appropriate mutex, do we need any locking
:> at all?
:
:Yes against the collector unless the collector is run periodically
:on each cpu to collect the stats.
:
:--
:-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org]
If we standardize the mutex used by interface device-driver interrupts
(if it isn't already done), the collector could obtain the mutex when
reading the counter, yes?
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201030012.g030Cgp60752>