[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:13:02 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: fix a race on 32bit arches
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 19:17 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> But why do you say at most 1 packet?
>
> Consider get_stats doing:
> u64_stats_update_begin(&stats->syncp);
> stats->tx_bytes += skb->len;
>
> on 64 bit at this point
> tx_packets might get incremented any number of times, no?
>
> stats->tx_packets++;
> u64_stats_update_end(&stats->syncp);
>
> now tx_bytes and tx_packets are out of sync by more than 1.
You lost me there.
No idea of what you are thinking about.
There is no atomicity guarantee in SNMP counters. (Ie fetching tx_bytes
and tx_packets in a transaction is not mandatory in any RFC)
As long as there is no cumulative error, its OK.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists