On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 07:30:29AM -0500, David Windsor wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > No, its not a statistic. Also, I'm far from convinced stats_t is an > > actually useful thing to have. > > > > Regarding this, has there been any thought given as to how stats_t > will meaningfully differ from atomic_t? If refcount_t is semantically > "atomic_t with reference counter overflow protection," what > services/guarantees does stats_t provide? I cannot think of any that > don't require implementing overflow detection of some sort, which > incurs a performance hit.
Afaict the whole point of stats_t was to allow overflow, since its only stats, nobody cares etc.. I think the sole motivator is a general distaste of atomic_t, which isn't a good reason at all.
