On Dec 30, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 03:55:01PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >> >> On Dec 30, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> >>> In the end, my goal here is to provide a useful abstraction and a >>> simple implementation that is likely to be correct. Then, later, if >>> profiling shows that this is an actual bottleneck, we can optimize >>> it. But I don't want to spend a bunch of time optimizing code that I >>> don't even know is important. >> >> Would using a single atomic int be worse than using an array of >> locks? At least it would be simpler and obviously correct? > > An atomic_uint would be easy, but the hit and miss and lost counts can > easily overflow UINT_MAX after a while. atomic_ullong isn't portable, > unfortunately. > > Maybe I will skip the whole controversy and just add a mutex around > these variables. It might be slow, but it might not be the bottleneck > initially, and it would be obviously correct. > > What do you guys think?
How about adding an OVS wrapper for atomic_ullong with a mutex-based fallback implementation? Would be nice, especially if a native implementation exists on some of the most used compilers/targets (?) Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
