lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-22 02:11    [W:0.034 / U:1.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site