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 S1754792AbbIHNdJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:33:09 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43452 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754175AbbIHNdG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:33:06 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:33:02 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: pi3orama <pi3orama@163.com>
Cc: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
        "kan.liang@intel.com" <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        "acme@kernel.org" <acme@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "lizefan@huawei.com" <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix invalid memory accessing
Message-ID: <20150908133302.GE2038@krava.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1441630315-189525-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
 <55ED90BE.9090706@huawei.com>
 <20150908073747.GA2038@krava.brq.redhat.com>
 <55EE9887.9030304@huawei.com>
 <20150908131349.GD2038@krava.brq.redhat.com>
 <F94FEA4B-1E83-465C-82B3-2094CE9682EA@163.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F94FEA4B-1E83-465C-82B3-2094CE9682EA@163.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:16:31PM +0800, pi3orama wrote:

SNIP

> >> Now I understand your suggestion. You mean we can build env->cpu before
> >> processing the first sample, then init al.socket using that map instead
> > 
> > hum, that should be the case anyway.. features are read before events
> > 
> >> of calling cpu_map__get_socket_id() unconditionally in an ad-hoc way.
> >> 
> >> And I have another question that, since build_cpu_topo() and
> >> perf_event__preprocess_sample() are more or less doing similar things,
> >> why we need both of them?
> > 
> > perf_event__preprocess_sample is called for each sample,
> > while build_cpu_topo is part of storing topology feature
> Sorry, what I wanted to say should be:
> cpu_map__get_socket_id() and  build_cpu_topo()...

cpu_map__get_socket_id is also used by perf stat

jirka