Re: Counting System Calls [patch]
The Thought Assassin (assassin@south.networx.net.au)
Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:20:23 +0800 (WST)
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Sander van Malssen wrote:
> > Do you think the counters should be 64 bits wide? They don't
> > *need* to be 64 bits wide, because at current processor speeds it'll
> > take a few hours to overflow, and a background process could read the
> > entries out of /proc and fix up the problem in user space in that
> > period.
> I'd rather just have 'em 64 bits on 64 bit hardware, and 32 bits on 32
> bit hardware. Note that on my system, which admittedly isn't in heavy
> use 24 hours a day, the *total* syscall count is always lower than the
> IRQ 0 timer tick count, which is good for about 580 days on 32 bit
> hardware, IIRC. (But it's true of course that the timer tick doesn't
> speed up if the system's continuously in heavy use, as the syscall
> counter will do.)
Mail I got today about a 2.0.33 machine:
(David Luyer wrote)
> uptime: 122d 10:41:26.66 context : 2147483647
^^^^^^^^^^
> (actually ctxt 2746346102 - the number of interrupts, 2722899210, also
> exceeds 2^31)
7~he 7~hought /|ssassin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu