Re: [PATCH] perf: fix topology test on systems with sparse CPUs

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Olsa" <jolsa@redhat.com>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, "alexander shishkin"
> <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>, jolsa@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, "rui teng"
> <rui.teng@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> Sent: Monday, 30 January, 2017 7:49:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix topology test on systems with sparse CPUs
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:53:34PM +0100, Jan Stancek wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > +		ret = build_cpu_topo(tp, cpu);
> >  		if (ret < 0)
> >  			break;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +out_free:
> > +	cpu_map__put(map);
> >  	if (ret) {
> >  		free_cpu_topo(tp);
> >  		tp = NULL;
> >  	}
> > +out:
> >  	return tp;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -575,7 +579,7 @@ static int write_cpu_topology(int fd, struct
> > perf_header *h __maybe_unused,
> >  	if (ret < 0)
> >  		goto done;
> >  
> > -	for (j = 0; j < perf_env.nr_cpus_avail; j++) {
> > +	for (j = 0; j < perf_env.nr_cpus_online; j++) {
> 
> so basically we're changing from avail to online cpus
> 
> have you checked all the users of this FEATURE
> if such change is ok?

You're right, I missed some. Looking again, I see at least
perf_env__get_core() could break.

Regards,
Jan