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

Re: [Xen-devel] performance counters


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:58:58 +0000
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:58:16 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acdm+VAYjnAtRtLsEdu/SQAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] performance counters

On 15/3/07 11:27, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In order to be meaningful and usable together with other measuring methods,
> their use in my opinion should impose as little overhead as possible. With
> that,
> I wonder why per-cpu counters use atomic operations.

Well, they shouldn't be. Nearly all (apart from the array/histogram ones)
are per-cpu anyway. And even if they weren't, a few lost increments wouldn't
matter (assuming the read and write parts of the increment are each
themselves atomic -- otherwise you could get worse write-conflict problems
like word tearing).

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.