On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:49:42 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Sounds good, but I have a question: this realies on counters > being atomic on 64 bit. > Would not it be better to always use a seqlock even on 64 bit? > This way counters would actually be correct and in sync. > As it is if we want e.g. average packet size, > we can not rely e.g. on it being bytes/packets. This has not been a requirement on real physical devices; therefore the added overhead is not really justified. Many network cards use counters in hardware to count packets/bytes and there is no expectation of atomic access there. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
