lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-20 11:21    [W:2.722 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site