From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932861AbcCQIkI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:08 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:32806 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932488AbcCQIkG (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:06 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:40:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>,
        Yang Dongsheng <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] cpuacct: split usage into user_usage and sys_usage
Message-ID: <20160317084002.GN6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1458187654.git.zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <5a23ec991c5abf9b62df76be5b081a5fa895f35b.1458187654.git.zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a23ec991c5abf9b62df76be5b081a5fa895f35b.1458187654.git.zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:19:44PM +0800, Zhao Lei wrote:
> +static u64 __cpuusage_read(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
> +			   enum cpuacct_usage_index index)
>  {
>  	struct cpuacct *ca = css_ca(css);
>  	u64 totalcpuusage = 0;
>  	int i;
>  
>  	for_each_present_cpu(i)
> +		totalcpuusage += cpuacct_cpuusage_read(ca, i, index);
>  
>  	return totalcpuusage;
>  }

Ok, so while looking over this, it mostly uses for_each_present_cpu(),
which is already dubious, but then cpuacct_stats_show() uses
for_each_online_cpu().

Why is this? Why not always for_each_possible_cpu()?

Surely, if you offline a cpu, you still want its stat to be included in
your totals, otherwise your numbers will go backwards when you take a
cpu offline.

Could you double check the logic and maybe fix?

Thanks!