MSVSphere Packaging Team
11 months ago
parent
73afb29946
commit
c18b9ee835
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
|||||||
|
From 1f5949d4a6fcb33065dbb1d509f356db039998ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
|
||||||
|
From: Sebastien GODARD <sysstat@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||||||
|
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:04:04 +0200
|
||||||
|
Subject: [PATCH] Workaround for iowait being decremented
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The iowait value reported by the kernel on NO_HZ systems can decrement
|
||||||
|
as a result of inaccurate iowait tracking. Waiting on IO can be first
|
||||||
|
accounted as iowait but then instead as idle.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Function get_per_cpu_interval() considers iowait going backwards between
|
||||||
|
two readings as a CPU coming back online and resets the iowait value of
|
||||||
|
the first reading to 0. If iowait is decremented only because of
|
||||||
|
inaccurate tracking, this causes that almost all time between the two
|
||||||
|
readings is incorrectly recognized by sar as being spent in iowait.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The patch updates the code in get_per_cpu_interval() to recognize this
|
||||||
|
situation. If the iowait value between two readings decremented but the
|
||||||
|
idle value did not then the code now considers it as a problem with the
|
||||||
|
iowait reporting and corrects the first value according to the second
|
||||||
|
reading. Otherwise, the code remains treating decremented iowait as a
|
||||||
|
CPU coming back online.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Fixes #14.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Signed-off-by: Sebastien GODARD <sysstat@users.noreply.github.com>
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
rd_stats.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
|
||||||
|
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
diff --git a/rd_stats.c b/rd_stats.c
|
||||||
|
index 56d42d00..fb93f23f 100644
|
||||||
|
--- a/rd_stats.c
|
||||||
|
+++ b/rd_stats.c
|
||||||
|
@@ -440,12 +440,26 @@ unsigned long long get_per_cpu_interval(struct stats_cpu *scc,
|
||||||
|
* value was greater than ULLONG_MAX - 0x7ffff (the counter probably
|
||||||
|
* overflew).
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
+ if ((scc->cpu_iowait < scp->cpu_iowait) && (scp->cpu_iowait < (ULLONG_MAX - 0x7ffff))) {
|
||||||
|
+ /*
|
||||||
|
+ * The iowait value reported by the kernel can also decrement as
|
||||||
|
+ * a result of inaccurate iowait tracking. Waiting on IO can be
|
||||||
|
+ * first accounted as iowait but then instead as idle.
|
||||||
|
+ * Therefore if the idle value during the same period did not
|
||||||
|
+ * decrease then consider this is a problem with the iowait
|
||||||
|
+ * reporting and correct the previous value according to the new
|
||||||
|
+ * reading. Otherwise, treat this as CPU coming back online.
|
||||||
|
+ */
|
||||||
|
+ if ((scc->cpu_idle > scp->cpu_idle) || (scp->cpu_idle >= (ULLONG_MAX - 0x7ffff))) {
|
||||||
|
+ scp->cpu_iowait = scc->cpu_iowait;
|
||||||
|
+ }
|
||||||
|
+ else {
|
||||||
|
+ scp->cpu_iowait = 0;
|
||||||
|
+ }
|
||||||
|
+ }
|
||||||
|
if ((scc->cpu_idle < scp->cpu_idle) && (scp->cpu_idle < (ULLONG_MAX - 0x7ffff))) {
|
||||||
|
scp->cpu_idle = 0;
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
- if ((scc->cpu_iowait < scp->cpu_iowait) && (scp->cpu_iowait < (ULLONG_MAX - 0x7ffff))) {
|
||||||
|
- scp->cpu_iowait = 0;
|
||||||
|
- }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* Don't take cpu_guest and cpu_guest_nice into account
|
||||||
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||||||
|
From 954ff2e2673cef48f0ed44668c466eab041db387 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
|
||||||
|
From: Pavel Kopylov <pkopylov@cloudlinux.com>
|
||||||
|
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 11:33:45 +0200
|
||||||
|
Subject: [PATCH] Fix an overflow which is still possible for some values.
|
||||||
|
diff --git a/common.c b/common.c
|
||||||
|
index 583a0ca..6d73b1b 100644
|
||||||
|
--- a/common.c
|
||||||
|
+++ b/common.c
|
||||||
|
@@ -1639,9 +1639,11 @@ int parse_values(char *strargv, unsigned char bitmap[], int max_val, const char
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
void check_overflow(size_t val1, size_t val2, size_t val3)
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
- if ((unsigned long long) val1 *
|
||||||
|
- (unsigned long long) val2 *
|
||||||
|
- (unsigned long long) val3 > UINT_MAX) {
|
||||||
|
+if ((val1 != 0) && (val2 != 0) && (val3 != 0) &&
|
||||||
|
+ (((unsigned long long)UINT_MAX / (unsigned long long)val1 <
|
||||||
|
+ (unsigned long long)val2) ||
|
||||||
|
+ ((unsigned long long)UINT_MAX / ((unsigned long long)val1 *
|
||||||
|
+ (unsigned long long)val2) < (unsigned long long)val3))) {
|
||||||
|
#ifdef DEBUG
|
||||||
|
fprintf(stderr, "%s: Overflow detected (%llu). Aborting...\n",
|
||||||
|
__FUNCTION__,
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in new issue