linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc/softirqs: only show state for online cpus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:56:53 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Keika Kobayashi <kobayashi.kk@...s.nec.co.jp>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/softirqs: only show state for online cpus

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Keika Kobayashi
<kobayashi.kk@...s.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
> for_each_online_cpu() was in my first patch, like /proc/softirq.
>
> But Andrew said
> --
> Probably for_each_possible_cpu() is best - people might want to see how
> many softirqs happened on a CPU which was recently offlined.
> --
> It makes sense.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

>
> We would like to collect this information
> for trouble-shooting.
> I think for_each_possible_cpu() is better.
>
> At that time, I suggested to change
> from for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu(),
> in /proc/interrupts.

+1
Thus we could also avoid the issue pointed by KOSAKI Motonhiro.

>
> In conclusion, we decided to remain /proc/interrupts.
> because it had been the way for a long time.

fair enough :)
I will make a patch for /proc/interrupts instead.

Thanks,
Yong



-- 
Only stand for myself
--
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/