----- Original Message ----- > Hello Daveļ¼ > > On 09/09/2014 10:04 PM, Dave Anderson wrote: > >>> > > Many of the changes reflect the contents of per-cpu data structures > >>> > > of offlined cpus, but even though the cpu is currently offline, the > >>> > > data structures still exist. Why prevent the user from viewing > >>> > > their > >>> > > contents? > >> > > >> > I think just showing online cpu's data is reasonable. > > Why? Give me an example as to when it is/was a problem? > > > >> > What about adding a internal crash variables (used by command set) to > >> > hide/show offline cpu's data? > > I suppose that could be done, but again, in my opinion there is no > > compelling > > reason to do so. I could be wrong, but aside from maybe "help -r", it > > seems > > that you are trying to answer a question that nobody's asking. > > I know it is important to show data of offline cpu, like debugging hot > remove. > But for those who don't care about the removed cpu, hiding offline cpu will > be > more clear. Then let me talk about the reason why I think hiding will be more > clear. > > I first got a vmcore with 90 cpus at first and 30 of them were physically > removed. After 30 cpus physically removed, the machine works with 60 cpus. > To those who don't care about data of the removed cpu, the following data > is confusing: > > 1. The machine only got 60 cpus, but crash shows 90 cpus. > 2. when I execute command timer, crash show 90 TVEC_BASES, some of them(maybe > exceed 30) are empty. But I have to check which cpu is offline, and then I > can know whether the empty is because of offline cpu or just no timer was set > on that cpu. > 3. comes to idle tasks, offline cpu is halt and related idle tasks will not > work, but crash shows they are running right now. > 4. ... > > After I check kernel, I found when cpu is set to offline, things, processes, > timers, interrupts etc., are migrated to a new cpu. So I tried to hide when > cpu is set offline(logically removed) instead of physically removed. > > The attachment is what I am trying to implement. If you don't like it, we can > go on discussing it.
Hello Qiao, Making it configurable sounds reasonable enough -- I will look into the details of this patch-set later this week. Thanks, Dave > > -- > Regards > Qiao Nuohan > -- Crash-utility mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
