From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
kan.liang@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Remove 'core_id' check in topo test
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:32:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151203233219.GA27696@us.ibm.com> (raw)
>From b6bb5d9182f89cd7c6f1eff3cd5a6d3f947b8b0c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:26:40 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Remove 'core_id' check in topo test
The topology test case of 'perf test' seems to be broken on my x86
system - due to the comparison of a "core-id" with # of CPUs online.
There are 8 online CPUs:
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/online
0-7
but core-ids are not sequential and some core-ids exceed the number
of online CPUs.
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu?/topology/core_id
0
1
9
10
0
1
9
10
Looks like we can safely remove the check. Output before:
$ ./perf --version
perf version 4.4.rc1.g34258a
$ ./perf test -v topo
36: Test topology in session :
--- start ---
test child forked, pid 5906
templ file: /tmp/perf-test-vCwWG3
core_id number is too big.You may need to upgrade the perf tool.
test child interrupted
---- end ----
Test topology in session: FAILED!
and after:
./perf test -v topo
36: Test topology in session :
--- start ---
test child forked, pid 6532
templ file: /tmp/perf-test-y10wFJ
CPU 0, core 0, socket 0
CPU 1, core 1, socket 0
CPU 2, core 9, socket 0
CPU 3, core 10, socket 0
CPU 4, core 0, socket 1
CPU 5, core 1, socket 1
CPU 6, core 9, socket 1
CPU 7, core 10, socket 1
test child finished with 0
---- end ----
Test topology in session: Ok
Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kan.liang@intel.com
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
---
| 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
--git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c
index 4383800..e74f94d 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/header.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c
@@ -1652,11 +1652,6 @@ static int process_cpu_topology(struct perf_file_section *section,
if (ph->needs_swap)
nr = bswap_32(nr);
- if (nr > (u32)cpu_nr) {
- pr_debug("core_id number is too big."
- "You may need to upgrade the perf tool.\n");
- goto free_cpu;
- }
ph->env.cpu[i].core_id = nr;
ret = readn(fd, &nr, sizeof(nr));
--
2.1.0
next reply other threads:[~2015-12-03 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-03 23:32 Sukadev Bhattiprolu [this message]
2016-03-13 18:54 ` Jiri Olsa
[not found] ` <CA+JHD91sxsyzfQt3NhyXdjtTFYjWfN7jj7kAWuj0v2+D=tpSNg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-03-13 19:56 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-03-24 7:36 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf test: " tip-bot for Sukadev Bhattiprolu
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=20151203233219.GA27696@us.ibm.com \
--to=sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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