Re: perf test topo broken?

[Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:13:53PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:

SNIP

> Commenting out following code seems to cause the test to pass, but are
> core_ids in general related to number of cpus online?
> 
> Sukadev
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c
> index 4383800..d5104da 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/header.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c
> @@ -1652,11 +1652,14 @@ static int process_cpu_topology(struct perf_file_section *section,
>                 if (ph->needs_swap)
>                         nr = bswap_32(nr);
>  
> +#if 0
>                 if (nr > (u32)cpu_nr) {
> -                       pr_debug("core_id number is too big."
> -                                "You may need to upgrade the perf tool.\n");
> +                       pr_debug("core_id number is too big.  nr %d, cpu_nr %d. "
> +                                "You may need to upgrade the perf tool.\n",
> +                                nr, cpu_nr);
>                         goto free_cpu;
>                 }
> +#endif
>                 ph->env.cpu[i].core_id = nr;

looks like we can safely remove this check,

I don't see any place we use core_id as array index
or any other place assuming core_id < cpu_nr

Kan Liang?

thanks,
jirka