From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020C3C433F5 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8566108B for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 02:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236942AbhIMCzI (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:55:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56850 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236931AbhIMCzH (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:55:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A25C061574 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id 18so7440670pfh.9 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=FPUAGtbwbn4kjBuCZISa6fV/xHEVlcFRDihnGPxqm7o=; b=jWHuU9wHSkt+CCZdihQR8hucyMXjEO/S4fhnFMZU7Lq5O8uwBcHBf6lVtAdqJXPM+g Ndps/Or64GbVxTjY1c/fcNulWk9b2N5C+eFML8DIB1Tb1hJrykR8KQfS4Ks/eS7co3GN sDWikAdR8fmIslNK83XMSPaM6/7s3577j3u988xh9zkUSoS++V150n5bkP3oNPlCyxK8 LzLjOueakql+KPJLSQGMwcqztRXIkeOLSqqMvJb86N1cPpcnzqnjpTfcRDLnK7+SelGz 3Lhq/bTN+qxN3L3GkZVv9kqmzcy/uGpvvoFqF+W0F/4NHh/PBMPY3xH///Q6473JfelK MZ1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=FPUAGtbwbn4kjBuCZISa6fV/xHEVlcFRDihnGPxqm7o=; b=I3fSQLxakKkBHlohyqpp29uIfgdmhH71u8za2MuUVLD8lAm2QzroOVzJW6hAKN+4hV AF9zHibjYq9OHIU/qqbSxfqjKz5YvkIuw9lTY3lU3GFiBxKbmWY/ne4Z29kudsjH3Pyh Cm4eZn39S3YU6SEl81wKKSrHwUFd5zFrZ+p4UtFhriobW+0oE0Ucvrrk+a8c7kHD8ubS pShXxyV2oKGpwzj6D/9IV6Sp9YdV+EqWzwxoic6LT78xP5LtbfOzrdpjRRjMony3lG6d sV+/OxcZ1Eaf/vk5IhANVdberiFxhEqUDyQUZcY/TrD/RBsxRgpVQXvD+xD7T1oitjWb jGEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hAnaeLKXCWNWyJ/jaZ1SLvyVxSHIqoDVQmND5xNy393/em5Yu lzw6l2dblaYdDquU+/Nc/xsfoFa1RLU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwPCUIs1jmUxjgeBuuqkFOQbu1mwCCBIwYLCt+2xbnahtU/C6f4Zt6MRb4YaUJtDGSkj2xhzA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:798c:: with SMTP id u134mr9239492pgc.479.1631501632130; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 19:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (122x211x248x161.ap122.ftth.ucom.ne.jp. [122.211.248.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm1937834pjs.43.2021.09.12.19.53.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 12 Sep 2021 19:53:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal To: John Kacur Cc: Clark Williams , RT , Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5 V2] rteval: Construct a 'model name' on architectures that don't have one References: <20210912154538.255217-1-jkacur@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:53:49 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20210912154538.255217-1-jkacur@redhat.com> (John Kacur's message of "Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:45:38 -0400") Message-ID: <87tuip9oea.fsf@stealth> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Hi John, John Kacur writes: > This is based on an idea from Punit Agrawal > > On architectures that lack 'model name' in /proc/cpuinfo > create 'model name' Unknown when creating the per core dictionaries > in cpuinfo > > For arm, we can construct the 'model name' from the > 'CPU implementer' > 'CPU architecture' > 'CPU variant' > 'CPU part' > 'CPU revision' > > Suggested-by: Punit Agrawal > Signed-off-by: John Kacur > --- > rteval/misc.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/rteval/misc.py b/rteval/misc.py > index 0dd361ff19fd..c1d2a972430d 100644 > --- a/rteval/misc.py > +++ b/rteval/misc.py > @@ -77,6 +77,27 @@ def cpuinfo(): > info[core] = {} > continue > info[core][key] = val > + > + for (core, pcdict) in info.items(): > + if not 'model name' in pcdict: > + # On Arm CPU implementer is present > + # Construct the model_name from the following fields > + if 'CPU implementer' in pcdict: > + model_name = [pcdict.get('CPU implementer')] > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU architecture')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU variant')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU part')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU revision', '')) Is there a reason to use an empty default for "CPU revision" but not for the other components? Maybe a left-over from original patch. > + > + # If a list item is None, remove it > + model_name = [name for name in model_name if name] > + > + # Convert the model_name list into a string > + model_name = " ".join(model_name) > + pcdict['model name'] = model_name > + else: > + pcdict['model name'] = 'Unknown' > + > return info > > if __name__ == "__main__": With the above comment addressed, fwiw - Reviewed-by: Punit Agrawal Tested-by: Punit Agrawal Thanks, Punit