Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 10:57:09 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@hpe.com>
Cc:     Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        "rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] sched: Add helper kstat_cpu_softirqs_sum()
Message-ID: <20221028175709.GP5600@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20221022124525.2080-1-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <20221022124525.2080-2-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
 <MW5PR84MB18423C3F30D3F789EB48D0A5AB339@MW5PR84MB1842.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MW5PR84MB18423C3F30D3F789EB48D0A5AB339@MW5PR84MB1842.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Precedence: bulk

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