From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] perf test: Add false_sharing workload exhibiting cross-CPU false sharing
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 20:25:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260929202549.EE88E1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260929201524.2507733-6-acme@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] perf/tests: sparse topology CPU discovery misses allowed CPUs
--
commit 20aa23e4b03f823c93c6019527a360319667c8b2
Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
perf test: Add false_sharing workload exhibiting cross-CPU false sharing
This commit adds a 'perf test -w false_sharing' workload that simulates false
sharing across CPUs in a TCP connection structure to test data type profiling.
> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/workloads/false_sharing.c b/tools/perf/tests/workloads/false_sharing.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..344875fb3a4d9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/workloads/false_sharing.c
[ ... ]
> + /* Pin against the allowed set, restricted cpusets still spread the threads. */
> + ncpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF);
> + if (sched_getaffinity(0, sizeof(set), &set) == 0) {
[Severity: Medium]
Does this loop correctly handle sparse CPU topologies?
sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF) returns the count of configured CPUs, not the
maximum CPU ID. On a system where only higher CPU IDs are present (for
example, if only CPUs 16-19 are configured, ncpus is 4), bounding the loop by
i < ncpus will stop checking at ID 3. This could cause the test to miss
allowed CPUs and fall back to unpinned execution, compromising the false
sharing demonstration.
> + for (i = 0; i < ncpus && i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) {
> + if (!CPU_ISSET(i, &set))
> + continue;
> + nr_allowed++;
> + }
> + allowed = malloc(nr_allowed * sizeof(int));
> + if (allowed == NULL) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "Error: malloc failed for CPU list\n");
> + return 1;
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
Is this second discovery loop also affected by the same boundary logic issue?
> + for (i = 0; i < ncpus && i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) {
> + if (CPU_ISSET(i, &set))
> + allowed[nallowed++] = i;
> + }
> + }
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260929201524.2507733-1-acme@kernel.org?part=5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-29 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 20:15 [PATCH v4 0/5] perf tools: Add progress diagnostics and a false-sharing workload Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:15 ` [PATCH 1/5] perf config: Move perf_config__set_variable() to util/config.c Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 20:15 ` [PATCH 2/5] perf report: Add --progress option Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 20:15 ` [PATCH 3/5] perf report: Add --no-progress option Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 20:15 ` [PATCH 4/5] perf scripts: Add perf-stuck, to tell where a running perf is stuck Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:22 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 20:15 ` [PATCH 5/5] perf test: Add false_sharing workload exhibiting cross-CPU false sharing Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 20:25 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-09-29 21:22 [PATCH v5 0/5] perf tools: Add progress diagnostics and a false-sharing workload Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 21:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] perf test: Add false_sharing workload exhibiting cross-CPU false sharing Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-29 21:28 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260929202549.EE88E1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox