Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] perf utils: use pmu->is_uncore to detect PMU UNCORE devices

["Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>]

On 12/6/2017 2:42 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:22PM +0800, Jin, Yao escreveu:
>> A quick test with the new patch 'fix_json_v9_2.patch' shows it working.
> 
> I'll take this as a Tested-by: you, ok?
>   

Hi Arnaldo,

I didn't do a full test for this patch and for the whole patch series.

I just do a quick test and it shows that the regression issue which was 
found in 'perf stat --per-thread' test case is disappear.

If you think it's enough for adding Tested-by, that's fine for me. :)

Thanks
Jin Yao

>> See the log:
>>
>> root@skl:/tmp# perf stat --per-thread -p 10322 -M CPI,IPC
>> ^C
>>   Performance counter stats for process id '10322':
>>
>>            vmstat-10322             1,879,654      inst_retired.any #
>> 0.8 CPI
>>            vmstat-10322             1,565,807      cycles
>>            vmstat-10322             1,879,654      inst_retired.any #
>> 1.2 IPC
>>            vmstat-10322             1,565,807      cpu_clk_unhalted.thread
>>
>>         2.850291804 seconds time elapsed
>>
>> Thanks for fixing it quickly.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jin Yao
>>
>> On 12/5/2017 3:23 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I applied the diff but it's failed.
>>>
>>> jinyao@skl:~/skl-ws/perf-dev/lck-4594/src$ patch -p1 < 1.pat
>>> patching file tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>>> patch: **** malformed patch at line 41: *head, struct perf_pmu *pmu)
>>>
>>> Could you send the patch as attachment to me in another mail thread?
>>>
>>> to yao.jin@linux.intel.com
>>> cc yao.jin@intel.com
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Jin Yao
>>>
>>> On 12/5/2017 3:12 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>>>> index 5ad8a18..57e38fd 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
>>>> @@ -538,6 +538,34 @@ static bool pmu_is_uncore(const char *name)
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>    /*
>>>> + *  PMU CORE devices have different name other than cpu in sysfs on some
>>>> + *  platforms. looking for possible sysfs files to identify as core
>>>> device.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int is_pmu_core(const char *name)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct stat st;
>>>> + char path[PATH_MAX];
>>>> + const char *sysfs = sysfs__mountpoint();
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!sysfs)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Look for cpu sysfs (x86 and others) */
>>>> + scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/bus/event_source/devices/cpu", sysfs);
>>>> + if ((stat(path, &st) == 0) &&
>>>> + (strncmp(name, "cpu", strlen("cpu")) == 0))
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Look for cpu sysfs (specific to arm) */
>>>> + scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/bus/event_source/devices/%s/cpus",
>>>> + sysfs, name);
>>>> + if (stat(path, &st) == 0)
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>>     * Return the CPU id as a raw string.
>>>>     *
>>>>     * Each architecture should provide a more precise id string that
>>>> @@ -641,7 +669,7 @@ static void pmu_add_cpu_aliases(struct list_head
>>>> *head, struct perf_pmu *pmu)
>>>>     break;
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>> - if (pmu->is_uncore) {
>>>> + if (!is_pmu_core(name)) {
>>>>     /* check for uncore devices */
>>>>     if (pe->pmu == NULL)
>>>>     continue;