On 9/23/25 17:27, Jonathan T. Looney wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 11:44 AM Guido Falsi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 9/22/25 17:37, Jonathan T. Looney wrote: > This seems like it is probably a low-frequency event. If so, why is a > counter a better choice for this than an atomic? > I used counters because they were already being used in the netinet6 code, and are a good match for the use.What makes them a good match for the use? Counters are generally best for write-often, read-rarely (by comparison) things, like statistics, where we want to avoid contention in a often-used critical path. For low-frequency events, the expense of keeping the counters (memory usage multiplied by the number of cores; more difficult debugging; etc.) may outweigh the benefits.
Maybe I explained myself poorly, I meant to say the structure already uses counters and they work.
It did not occur to me to use something different, but I see no problem using a different tool, as long as it works and does not make the logic more complex.
-- Guido Falsi <[email protected]>
