From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec 19 11:42:24 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8965A1065746;
	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:42:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net)
Received: from swip.net (mailfe01.swip.net [212.247.154.1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4FE8FC08;
	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 []
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=MnI1ikcADjEx7bvsp0jZvQ==:17
	a=Fa0p2dj8wnFP207fzp8A:9 a=NRoDMZWEEsvWI_krVPgA:7
	a=f3fVchOcrPINIEe5_G_UAmhSYaQA:4 a=u4nCZWMP6T-Rh-9c:21
Received: from [188.126.201.140] (account mc467741@c2i.net HELO
	laptop.adsl.tele2.no)
	by mailfe01.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16)
	with ESMTPA id 293568362; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:42:21 +0100
From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net>
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:44:14 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (FreeBSD/9.0-CURRENT; KDE/4.2.4; i386; ; )
References: <20091215103759.P97203@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
	<200912151313.28326.jhb@freebsd.org>
	<20091219112711.GR55913@acme.spoerlein.net>
In-Reply-To: <20091219112711.GR55913@acme.spoerlein.net>
X-Face: (%<A9p';5>:6u[ldzJ`0qjD7sCkfdMmD*RxpO<
	=?iso-8859-1?q?Q0yAl=7E=3F=60=27F=3FjDVb=5DE6TQ7=27=23h-VlLs=7Dk/=0A=09?=(yxg(p!IL.`#ng"%`BMrham7%UK,}VH\wUOm=^>wEEQ+KWt[{J#x6ow~JO:,zwp.(t;
	@ =?iso-8859-1?q?Aq=0A=09=3A4=3A=26nFCgDb8=5B3oIeTb=5E=27?=",;
	u{5{}C9>"PuY\)!=#\u9SSM-nz8+SR~B\!qBv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200912191244.17803.hselasky@c2i.net>
Cc: Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?q?Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>,
	Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: network statistics in SMP
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:42:24 -0000

On Saturday 19 December 2009 12:27:12 Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote:
> On Tue, 15.12.2009 at 13:13:28 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 December 2009 12:45:13 pm Harti Brandt wrote:
> > > I see. I was also thinking along these lines, but was not sure whether
> > > it is worth the trouble. I suppose this does not help to implement
> > > 64-bit counters on 32-bit architectures, though, because you cannot
> > > read them reliably without locking to sum them up, right?
> >
> > Either that or you just accept that you have a small race since it is
> > only stats. :)
>
> This might be stupid, but can we not easily *read* 64bit counters
> on 32bit machines like this:
>
> do {
>     h1 =3D read_upper_32bits;
>     l1 =3D read_lower_32bits;
>     h2 =3D read_upper_32bits;
>     l2 =3D read_lower_32bits; /* not needed */
> } while (h1 !=3D h2);


Hi,

Just a comment. You know you don't need a while loop to get a stable value?=
=20
Should be implemented like this, in my opinion:

h1 =3D read_upper_32bits;
l1 =3D read_lower_32bits;
h2 =3D read_upper_32bits;

if (h1 !=3D h2)
	l1 =3D 0xffffffffUL;

sum64 =3D (h1<<32) | l1;

=2D-HPS