Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: fix a race on 32bit arches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 08:14:32AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:49:42 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

BTW for cards that do implement the counters in software,
under xmit lock, is anything wrong with simply taking the xmit lock
when we get the stats instead of the per-cpu trick + seqlock?

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization


[KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Find Someone Nice]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]
Add to Google Powered by Linux