Thank you for the fix, Lucas. On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 5:54 AM <devel-request(a)lists.crash-utility.osci.io&gt; wrote: > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:52:18 -0500 > From: soakley(a)redhat.com > Subject: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Fix misleading CPU count in > display_sys_stats() > To: devel(a)lists.crash-utility.osci.io > Cc: Lucas Oakley <soakley(a)redhat.com&gt; > Message-ID: <20250103215218.712496-1-soakley(a)redhat.com&gt; > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; x-default=true > > From: Lucas Oakley <soakley(a)redhat.com&gt; > > This simplication fixes the total CPU count being reported > incorrectly in ppc64le and s390x systems when some number of > CPUs have been offlined, as the kt->cpus value is adjusted. > This adds the word "OFFLINE" to the 'sys' output for s390x > and ppc64le, like exists for x86_64 and aarch64 when examining > systems with offlined CPUs. > > Without patch: > > KERNEL: /debug/4.18.0-477.10.1.el8_8.s390x/vmlinux > DUMPFILE: /proc/kcore > CPUS: 1 > > With patch: > > KERNEL: /debug/4.18.0-477.10.1.el8_8.s390x/vmlinux > DUMPFILE: /proc/kcore > CPUS: 2 [OFFLINE: 1] > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Oakley <soakley(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > kernel.c | 16 +++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel.c b/kernel.c > index 8c2e0ca..3e190f1 100644 > --- a/kernel.c > +++ b/kernel.c > @@ -5816,15 +5816,13 @@ display_sys_stats(void) > pc->kvmdump_mapfile); > } > > - if (machine_type("PPC64")) > - fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d\n", get_cpus_to_display()); > - else { > - fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d", kt->cpus); > - if (kt->cpus - get_cpus_to_display()) > - fprintf(fp, " [OFFLINE: %d]", > - kt->cpus - get_cpus_to_display()); > - fprintf(fp, "\n"); > - } > + int number_cpus_to_display = get_cpus_to_display(); > + int number_cpus_present = get_cpus_present(); > + fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d", number_cpus_present); > + if (number_cpus_present != number_cpus_to_display) > + fprintf(fp, " [OFFLINE: %d]", > + number_cpus_present - number_cpus_to_display); > + fprintf(fp, "\n"); > > if (ACTIVE()) > get_xtime(&kt->date); > What do you think about the following changes? diff --git a/kernel.c b/kernel.c index 8c2e0ca50482..2f451cc6056b 100644 --- a/kernel.c +++ b/kernel.c @@ -5816,15 +5816,16 @@ display_sys_stats(void) pc->kvmdump_mapfile); } - if (machine_type("PPC64")) - fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d\n", get_cpus_to_display()); - else { - fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d", kt->cpus); - if (kt->cpus - get_cpus_to_display()) - fprintf(fp, " [OFFLINE: %d]", - kt->cpus - get_cpus_to_display()); - fprintf(fp, "\n"); - } + int number_cpus_to_display = get_cpus_to_display(); + int number_cpus_present = get_cpus_present(); + if (!number_cpus_present) + number_cpus_present = kt->cpus; + + fprintf(fp, " CPUS: %d", number_cpus_present); + if (number_cpus_present > number_cpus_to_display) + fprintf(fp, " [OFFLINE: %d]", + number_cpus_present - number_cpus_to_display); + fprintf(fp, "\n"); if (ACTIVE()) get_xtime(&kt->date); Thanks Lianbo -- > 2.47.1 >