Flavio Cruz, le jeu. 01 déc. 2022 00:10:19 -0500, a ecrit: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:21:28PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Flavio Cruz, le mer. 30 nov. 2022 02:10:16 -0500, a ecrit: > > > @table @code > > > -@item natural_t faults > > > +@item unsigned int faults > > > number of page faults > > > > > > -@item natural_t zero_fills > > > +@item unsigned int zero_fills > > > number of zero fill pages > > > > > > -@item natural_t reactivations > > > +@item unsigned int reactivations > > > number of reactivated pages > > > > > > -@item natural_t pageins > > > +@item unsigned int pageins > > > number of actual pageins > > > > > > -@item natural_t cow_faults > > > +@item unsigned int cow_faults > > > number of copy-on-write faults > > > > > > -@item natural_t messages_sent > > > +@item unsigned int messages_sent > > > number of messages sent > > > > > > -@item natural_t messages_received > > > +@item unsigned int messages_received > > > > It would be more convenient for these to be 64bit on 64bit systems? > > > > Of course 64bit can overflow as well, but at least it makes it easy to > > write simple programs to get it and have very little probability of > > overflowing. > > I think that should fine. Would it be ok to define a new type called > rpc_unsigned_long to define those counters? It would be 32 bits or 64 bits > long depending on the userland.
Mmm, I'm not sure about the name. natural_t and integer_t were supposed to be "the size of a register", and castable to a pointer. It seems that xnu dropped the pointer part, just like you seem to imply here, i.e. natural_t and integer_t would remain "just an integer that's not too small". It seems they kept events_info using integer_t rather than a large number. But I'd still rather upgrade to 64bit. I'd also say we'd rather keep coherent with the historical natural/integer names. I would thus say we could go with long_natural_t and long_integer_t, and be very explicit about the status of natural/integer_t and long_natural/integer_t, something like: - natural/integer_t are integer types which are reasonably small, making them suitable for most counters, while possibly be subject to overflows. - long_natural/integer_t are integer types which are possibly larger than natural/integer, whenever the processor supports it, making them less subject to overflows. And explicit that all of these types are not related to the size of pointers, offsets, sizes. Samuel
