From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753083AbbIKNgM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:36:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:34651 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752167AbbIKNgK (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:36:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:36:06 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: "Wangnan (F)" Cc: Kan Liang , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Hunter , Borislav Petkov , David Ahern , Frederic Weisbecker , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Stephane Eranian Subject: Re: [RFC 00/13] perf_env/CPU socket reorg/fixes Message-ID: <20150911133606.GM23511@kernel.org> References: <1441828225-667-1-git-send-email-acme@kernel.org> <55F2C726.4080204@huawei.com> <20150911130339.GI23511@kernel.org> <20150911132937.GK23511@kernel.org> <20150911133052.GL23511@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150911133052.GL23511@kernel.org> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:30:52AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:29:37AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > Em Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:03:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > > Em Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:20:54PM +0800, Wangnan (F) escreveu: > > > > I have tested patch 1 to 10. They looks good to me except patch 4/13. Please > > > > > > Ok, I'll take that as a Tested-by: you for 1-10 with 4/13 having the > > > checks added, ok? > > > > > > see my email in that thread. > > > > > I add those checks. > > > > Ok, below is the diff for adding the checks. The get_{core,socket}_id > > functions should be moved to tools/lib/api/cpu.[ch], using the same > > interface as cpu__get_max_freq(&value), using the int return value to > > propagate the precise error, etc. Will do it in a follow up patch. > > Humm, but then, what happens if a CPU is offline? I'm checking it now... # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/core_id 3 # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/physical_package_id 0 # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/physical_package_id cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/physical_package_id: No such file or directory # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/core_id cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/topology/core_id: No such file or directory # So we shouldn't check the result, right? We could further validate it by checking: # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online 0 # But assuming that not being able to access it means it is offline looks almost reasonable, if not strictly correct, so I'm removing the tests and will revisit this when I move those functions to tools/lib/api/cpu.[ch]. - Arnaldo > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/env.c b/tools/perf/util/env.c > > index 6af4f7c36820..2e4cad84197b 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/env.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/env.c > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ out_enomem: > > > > int perf_env__read_cpu_topology_map(struct perf_env *env) > > { > > - int cpu, nr_cpus; > > + int cpu, nr_cpus, err; > > > > if (env->cpu != NULL) > > return 0; > > @@ -77,10 +77,17 @@ int perf_env__read_cpu_topology_map(struct perf_env *env) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr_cpus; ++cpu) { > > - env->cpu[cpu].core_id = cpu_map__get_core_id(cpu); > > - env->cpu[cpu].socket_id = cpu_map__get_socket_id(cpu); > > + err = env->cpu[cpu].core_id = cpu_map__get_core_id(cpu); > > + if (err < 0) > > + goto out_free; > > + err = env->cpu[cpu].socket_id = cpu_map__get_socket_id(cpu); > > + if (err < 0) > > + goto out_free; > > } > > > > - env->nr_cpus_avail = nr_cpus; > > return 0; > > + > > +out_free: > > + zfree(&env->cpu); > > + return err; > > }