From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754207AbdA3T3j (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:29:39 -0500 Received: from mx6-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.39]:48107 "EHLO mx6-phx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754037AbdA3T3i (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:29:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:29:08 -0500 (EST) From: Jan Stancek To: Jiri Olsa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, alexander shishkin , jolsa@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, rui teng , sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com Message-ID: <2133680745.261999.1485804548957.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20170130184908.GB28444@krava> References: <290bf2031885722414cb1ae031869094a18b0580.1485794959.git.jstancek@redhat.com> <20170130184908.GB28444@krava> Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix topology test on systems with sparse CPUs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.34.26.57] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.6_GA_5922 (ZimbraWebClient - FF51 (Win)/8.0.6_GA_5922) Thread-Topic: perf: fix topology test on systems with sparse CPUs Thread-Index: zK/O7HFjjT6vZADFtcyyso5Xx6dVRQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jiri Olsa" > To: "Jan Stancek" > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, "alexander shishkin" > , jolsa@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, "rui teng" > , 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