From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760634Ab2D0PcP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:32:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:59873 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760416Ab2D0PcN (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:32:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4F9ABBF9.8080409@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:32:09 -0600 From: David Ahern User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo CC: Namhyung Kim , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Ingo Molnar , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] perf evlist: Fix creation of cpu map References: <1335417327-11796-1-git-send-email-namhyung.kim@lge.com> <1335417327-11796-8-git-send-email-namhyung.kim@lge.com> <4F996433.7040003@gmail.com> <1335474778.1497.14.camel@leonhard> <4F99BCAF.1080309@gmail.com> <87397qhvvx.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> <20120427150821.GA27997@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20120427150821.GA27997@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/27/12 9:08 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 09:16:18AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:22:55 -0600, David Ahern wrote: >>> On 4/26/12 3:12 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>>> Hmm.. No, I can reproduce it without any of this series. And now I think >>>> that it is not related to the number of cpus. On my 4 core (no >>>> hyperthreading) machine at home, the result was same. >>>> >>>> BTW, did you change sysctl settings? >>>> >>>> $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/online >>>> 0-3 >>>> $ grep . /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_* >>>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_max_sample_rate:100000 >>>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb:516 >>>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid:1 >>> >>> $ grep . /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_* >>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_max_sample_rate:100000 >>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb:516 >>> /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid:-1 >>> >>> That last one is the key. I have it set to not paranoid and usually >>> run perf a non-root user. >>> >> >> That's exactly what I want to see :). On perf_mmap() we have: >> >> if ((locked> lock_limit)&& perf_paranoid_tracepoint_raw()&& >> !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) { >> ret = -EPERM; >> goto unlock; >> } >> >> So as long as you set perf_event_paranoid to -1 or run perf test as >> root, you cannot see the failure. > > Ok, after this discussion, David, can I have your acked-by or tested-by? > > - Arnaldo I had reviewed the whole series yesterday, so you can add my Reviewed-by: David Ahern to the whole series if you want. I did not pull down the set and apply to test it, and this particular patch requires prior ones so I have not tested it. David