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

[Yong Zhang]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Keika Kobayashi
<kobayashi.kk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/