From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754019AbbIHHi6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:38:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35721 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751952AbbIHHi4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:38:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:38:54 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , mingo@kernel.org, kan.liang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 07/14] perf tools: Add evsel->own_cpus Message-ID: <20150908073854.GB2038@krava.brq.redhat.com> References: <1441636076-31390-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <1441636076-31390-8-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <20150908064508.GA20530@krava.brq.redhat.com> <55EE8996.3010608@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55EE8996.3010608@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:09:10AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 08/09/15 09:45, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:27:49PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >> perf_evlist__propagate_maps() cannot easily tell if an evsel > >> has its own cpu map. To make that simpler, keep a copy of > >> the PMU cpu map and adjust the propagation logic accordingly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter > >> --- > >> tools/perf/util/evlist.c | 5 ++++- > >> tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 1 + > >> tools/perf/util/evsel.h | 1 + > >> tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 4 ++-- > >> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > >> index c959c42080e3..6764e0eff849 100644 > >> --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > >> @@ -1111,9 +1111,12 @@ static void perf_evlist__propagate_maps(struct perf_evlist *evlist) > >> * We already have cpus for evsel (via PMU sysfs) so > >> * keep it, if there's no target cpu list defined. > >> */ > >> - if (!evsel->cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) { > >> + if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) { > >> cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus); > >> evsel->cpus = cpu_map__get(evlist->cpus); > >> + } else if (evsel->cpus != evsel->own_cpus) { > >> + cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus); > >> + evsel->cpus = cpu_map__get(evsel->own_cpus); > > > > hum, so (evsel->cpus != evsel->own_cpus) could happen only when: > > - evsel->own_cpus != NULL > > - we overloaded evsel->cpus with evlist->cpus via perf_evlist__propagate_maps > > - we changed evlist->has_user_cpus = false > > - we recall perf_evlist__propagate_maps > > > > I'm missing usecase for that, or something else ;-) > > That's true but the idea is to establish rules (invariants) that are always > true. Like an evsel either has its own cpu map or the same as the evlist. ook, jirka