>>> Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 15.03.07 16:03 >>>
>On 15/3/07 14:37, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> at least on architectures where we know the resulting incorrectness is not
>>> 'too bad' (that includes x86). Some of the shared counters are on hot paths.
>>> Alternatively we could make *all* counters per-cpu, even histogram counter
>>> arrays.
>> 
>> To me that would seem like the better alternative than dropping atomicity.
>
>It has the added benefit of avoiding cacheline bouncing.
>
>It just needs someone to implement this improvement. ;-)
I'll take care of this, but it may take me a few days to get to it. But I
also think there's no need for rush here.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel