On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 07:04:53PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Servers) wrote:
>
> > Similar to kstat_cpu_irqs_sum(), it counts the sum of all software
> > interrupts on a specified CPU.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kernel_stat.h b/include/linux/kernel_stat.h
> > @@ -67,6 +67,17 @@ static inline unsigned int kstat_softirqs_cpu(unsigned int irq, int cpu)
> > return kstat_cpu(cpu).softirqs[irq];
> > }
> >
> > +static inline unsigned int kstat_cpu_softirqs_sum(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + unsigned int sum = 0;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < NR_SOFTIRQS; i++)
> > + sum += kstat_softirqs_cpu(i, cpu);
> > +
> > + return sum;
> > +}
>
> In the function upon which this is based:
>
> irqs_sumstruct kernel_stat {
> unsigned long irqs_sum;
> unsigned int softirqs[NR_SOFTIRQS];
> };
>
> static inline unsigned int kstat_cpu_irqs_sum(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> return kstat_cpu(cpu).irqs_sum;
> }
>
> kstat_cpu_irqs_sum returns an unsigned long as an unsigned int, which
> could cause large values to be truncated. Should that return
> unsigned long? The only existing caller is fs/proc/stat.c which
> puts it into a u64:
> u64 sum = 0;
> ...
> sum += kstat_cpu_irqs_sum(i);
>
> The softirqs field is an unsigned int, so the new function doesn't have
> this inconsistency.
Good point!
Zhen Lei, thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
