From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753683AbbINB07 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:26:59 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:27860 "EHLO
	szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753201AbbINB06 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:26:58 -0400
Message-ID: <55F62250.7050605@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:26:40 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
CC: Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/13] perf_env/CPU socket reorg/fixes
References: <1441828225-667-1-git-send-email-acme@kernel.org> <55F2C726.4080204@huawei.com> <20150911130339.GI23511@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150911130339.GI23511@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.111.66.109]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 2015/9/11 21:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 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?

Sure.

Tested-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> // for patch 1-10 except 4

>> see my email in that thread.
> I add those checks.
>   
>> However, during the testing I found a limitation related to cpu
>> online/offline and 'perf top' that, if I offline most of cores before
>> 'perf top', then online them during 'perf top' running, 'perf top'
>> dooesn't report new CPUs. It still reports the CPUs which are online
> <SNIP>
>   
>> However, It is relatively a rare case. I don't think we have to fix it
>> in this patchset.
> Yup, unrelated to this patchset. But we need to seamlessly support that
> situation, even telling the user that a CPU went offline/online.
>
> - Arnaldo