Eduardo Horvath wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Martin Husemann wrote: > > > I have one stupid question: why can't we leave the size of the counters > > at 32bit on a per arch basis? > > Or use 64-bit counters but just update the lower 32-bits of them. Is > there some danger that a 32-bit counter will overflow?
My home server has been up for 70 days, and the largest counter is 3826338196 software interrupts which is pretty close to 2^32 (if I counted the digits correctly). I haven't looked at Matt's diff yet, but 64 bit uvmexp counters was always one of those little projects I meant to get around to one day but didn't. Nice to see this at last. Cheers, Simon.