From: Palmer Cox <p@lmercox.com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpupower tools: Fix warning and a bug with the cpu package count
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 22:58:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120810025851.GA4609@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201208091207.36846.trenn@suse.de>
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:07:36PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:24:48 Palmer Cox wrote:
> > The pkgs member of cpupower_topology is being used as the number of
> > cpu packages. As the comment in get_cpu_topology notes, the package ids
> > are not guaranteed to be contiguous. So, simply setting pkgs to the value
> > of the highest physical_package_id doesn't actually provide a count of
> > the number of cpu packages. Instead, calculate pkgs by setting it to
> > the number of distinct physical_packge_id values which is pretty easy
> > to do after the core_info structs are sorted. Calculating pkgs this
> > way also has the nice benefit of getting rid of a sign comparison warning
> > that GCC 4.6 was reporting.
> > ---
> > tools/power/cpupower/utils/helpers/topology.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/helpers/topology.c b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/helpers/topology.c
> > index 4e2b583..fd3cc4d 100644
> > --- a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/helpers/topology.c
> > +++ b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/helpers/topology.c
> > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static int __compare(const void *t1, const void *t2)
> > */
> > int get_cpu_topology(struct cpupower_topology *cpu_top)
> > {
> > - int cpu, cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF);
> > + int cpu, last_pkg, cpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF);
> >
> > cpu_top->core_info = malloc(sizeof(struct cpuid_core_info) * cpus);
> > if (cpu_top->core_info == NULL)
> > @@ -78,20 +78,28 @@ int get_cpu_topology(struct cpupower_topology *cpu_top)
> > "physical_package_id",
> > &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg)) < 0)
> > return -1;
> > - if ((int)cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg != -1 &&
> > - cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg > cpu_top->pkgs)
> > - cpu_top->pkgs = cpu_top->core_info[cpu].pkg;
> > if(sysfs_topology_read_file(
> > cpu,
> > "core_id",
> > &(cpu_top->core_info[cpu].core)) < 0)
> > return -1;
> > }
> > - cpu_top->pkgs++;
> >
> > qsort(cpu_top->core_info, cpus, sizeof(struct cpuid_core_info),
> > __compare);
> >
> > + /* Count the number of distinct pkgs values. This works
> > + becuase the primary sort of of the core_info structs was just
> becuase ... of of ... struct instead of structs
Oof. I'm not winning any grammar medals for this. Thanks for
noticing.
>
> Otherwise the first 4 patches look like rather nice and straight forward
> cleanups/fixes.
> Feel free to add a Reviewed-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Will do. Thanks!
>
> Let me have a closer look at patch 5 and 6. I had problems getting rid of
> the compiler warning, looks like you found an easy way to clean this up.
> I will be back and have time for this in the beginning of next week.
Thanks for the review! Let me know if there is anything in patches 5
and 6 that needs cleaning up and I'll be happy to do it. I only have
access to a laptop with a single package 2 core Centrino2 processor.
I tested each patch in the series on my laptop running a 64-bit 3.5
kernel to make sure that everything functioned. I'm no expert in the
exact expected output of the tool, but the only impact that I
believe these patches should have is the output of the number of cpu
packages. I tested this on my system which resulted in reporting
just a single cpu package as I expected, but I don't have access to
a system with multiple cpu packages to test on.
>
> On which platforms (topology) did you test this?
>
> Thomas
-Palmer
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-10 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-07 2:24 [PATCH 0/6] cpupower tools: Fix minor bugs and warnings Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] cpupower tools: Remove brace expansion from clean target Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] cpupower tools: Update .gitignore for files created in the debug directories Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] cpupower tools: Fix minor warnings Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] cpupower tools: Fix issues with sysfs_topology_read_file Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] cpupower tools: Fix malloc of cpu_info structure Palmer Cox
2012-08-07 2:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] cpupower tools: Fix warning and a bug with the cpu package count Palmer Cox
2012-08-09 10:07 ` Thomas Renninger
2012-08-10 2:58 ` Palmer Cox [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120810025851.GA4609@gmail.com \
--to=p@lmercox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=trenn@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome