lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] For preventing kstat overflow
Kingsley Cheung <kingsley@aurema.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> What do people think of a patch to change the fields in cpu_usage_stat
> from unsigned ints to unsigned long longs? And the same change for
> nr_switches in the runqueue structure too?

Sounds unavoidable.

> Its actually worse for context
> switches on a busy system, for we've been seeing an average of ten
> switches a tick for some of the statistics we have.

Sounds broken. What CPU scheduler are you using?


> for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> - seq_printf(p, "cpu%d %u %u %u %u %u %u %u\n",
> + seq_printf(p, "cpu%d %llu %llu %llu %llu %llu %llu %llu\n",
> i,
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.user),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.nice),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.system),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.iowait),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.irq),
> - jiffies_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.softirq));
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.user),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.nice),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.system),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.idle),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.iowait),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.irq),
> + jiffies_64_to_clock_t(kstat_cpu(i).cpustat.softirq));

jiffies_64_to_clock_t() takes and returns a u64, not an unsigned long long.

> }
> - seq_printf(p, "intr %u", sum);
> + seq_printf(p, "intr %llu", sum);

It would be best to convert everything to u64, not to unsigned long long.
But cast them to unsigned long long for printk.

It's a bit ugly, but at least it pins everything down to know types and
sizes on all architectures.

> struct cpu_usage_stat {
> - unsigned int user;
> - unsigned int nice;
> - unsigned int system;
> - unsigned int softirq;
> - unsigned int irq;
> - unsigned int idle;
> - unsigned int iowait;
> + unsigned long long user;
> + unsigned long long nice;
> + unsigned long long system;
> + unsigned long long softirq;
> + unsigned long long irq;
> + unsigned long long idle;
> + unsigned long long iowait;

Do these have appropriate locking or are we just accepting the occasional
glitch?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.065 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site