[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081121170743.cd30b01e.kobayashi.kk@ncos.nec.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:07:43 -0800
From: Keika Kobayashi <kobayashi.kk@...s.nec.co.jp>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] proc: Export statistics for softirq to /proc
> > +/*
> > + * /proc/softirqs ... display the number of softirqs
> > + */
> > +static int show_softirqs(struct seq_file *p, void *v)
> > +{
> > + int i, j;
> > +
> > + seq_printf(p, " ");
> > + for_each_online_cpu(i)
> > + seq_printf(p, "CPU%-8d", i);
> > + seq_printf(p, "\n");
> > +
> > + for_each_softirq_nr(i) {
> > + seq_printf(p, "%-10s", desc_array[i]);
> > + for_each_online_cpu(j)
> > + seq_printf(p, "%10u ", kstat_softirqs_cpu(i, j));
> > + seq_printf(p, "\n");
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> This uses for_each_online_cpu(), but below we use for_each_possible_cpu().
>
> Shouldn't we be consistent here so that at least the numbers will add
> up to the same thing?
>
> Probably for_each_possible_cpu() is best - people might want to see how
> many softirqs happened on a CPU which was recently offlined.
I understand this point. I'll fix it later.
There is same problem regarding /proc/interrupts.
Should we change from for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu(),
or is it too late?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists