From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752788AbcCMT4j (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:56:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40101 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752009AbcCMT4i (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2016 15:56:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:56:32 +0100 From: Jiri Olsa To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Kan Liang , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Remove 'core_id' check in topo test Message-ID: <20160313195632.GB19553@krava.redhat.com> References: <20151203233219.GA27696@us.ibm.com> <20160313185419.GA19553@krava.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 04:13:08PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Its in perf/core as if a few days ago, IIRC > Le 13 mars 2016 3:54 PM, "Jiri Olsa" a écrit : cool, thanks jirka > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 03:32:19PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > > > From b6bb5d9182f89cd7c6f1eff3cd5a6d3f947b8b0c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu > > > Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:26:40 -0500 > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Remove 'core_id' check in topo test > > > > hi, > > looks like this one fell through the cracks > > > > Arnaldo, could you please queue it.. > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa ;-) > > > > thanks, > > jirka > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > Cc: kan.liang@intel.com > > > Cc: Jiri Olsa > > > --- > > > tools/perf/util/header.c | 5 ----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --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 > > > > >