Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:46:45 +0100 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: perf test topo broken? |
| |
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:13:53PM -0800, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
SNIP
> Commenting out following code seems to cause the test to pass, but are > core_ids in general related to number of cpus online? > > Sukadev > > --- > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c > index 4383800..d5104da 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/header.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c > @@ -1652,11 +1652,14 @@ static int process_cpu_topology(struct perf_file_section *section, > if (ph->needs_swap) > nr = bswap_32(nr); > > +#if 0 > if (nr > (u32)cpu_nr) { > - pr_debug("core_id number is too big." > - "You may need to upgrade the perf tool.\n"); > + pr_debug("core_id number is too big. nr %d, cpu_nr %d. " > + "You may need to upgrade the perf tool.\n", > + nr, cpu_nr); > goto free_cpu; > } > +#endif > ph->env.cpu[i].core_id = nr;
looks like we can safely remove this check,
I don't see any place we use core_id as array index or any other place assuming core_id < cpu_nr
Kan Liang?
thanks, jirka
| |