[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH - RFC] [1/5] 64-bit network statistics - generic net

To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] [1/5] 64-bit network statistics - generic net
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:41:00 -0700
Cc: Jeff Sipek <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3F0737D1.5090109@xxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Candela Technologies
References: <E19YtAq-0006Xf-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200307051637.52252.jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3F0737D1.5090109@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529
Jeff Garzik wrote:
The net stats are already unsigned long internally.

64-bit case is handled quite nicely today, thanks :)

I'm such a 64-bit bigot that "buy a 64-bit computer" is a solution I commonly suggest, and it seems to fit well here, too.

    Jeff, wondering if Intel will bother to compete w/ Athlon64

Untill the net-stats are 64-bit on 32-bit systems, we will need some
way to know if they have wrapped or not when reading from nettool
and getting 64-bit numbers.

I guess what I really mean to say is that, if nettool is returning 64-bit
values, we need to know which ones are obtained from 32-bit counters.
32 -> 64 bit mapping will require wrap handling on low 32-bits, but
64 -> 64 bit mapping will require wrapping about 4-billion times less often :)

Perhaps a precision field is also needed for backwards/forwards compatability,
and perhaps a nettool version field as well to also help with backwards/forwards


Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>       <Ben_Greear AT>
President of Candela Technologies Inc

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>