Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf/bench/numa: Add functions to detect sparse numa nodes | From | Satheesh Rajendran <> | Date | Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:17:46 +0530 |
| |
Hi Naveen,Thanks for detailed review, my comments inline.
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 20:44 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > Hi Satheesh, > > On 2017/08/21 10:15AM, sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > > From: Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > Added functions 1) to get a count of all nodes that are exposed to > > userspace. These nodes could be memoryless cpu nodes or cpuless > > memory > > nodes, 2) to check given node is present and 3) to check given > > node has cpus > > > > This information can be used to handle sparse/discontiguous nodes. > > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 44 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > index 469d65b..2483174 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > @@ -215,6 +215,50 @@ static const char * const numa_usage[] = { > > NULL > > }; > > > > +/* > > + * To get number of numa nodes present. > > + */ > > +static int nr_numa_nodes(void) > > +{ > > + int i, nr_nodes = 0; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < g->p.nr_nodes; i++) { > > + if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(numa_nodes_ptr, i)) > > + nr_nodes++; > > + } > > + > > + return nr_nodes; > > +} > > + > > +/* > Please run patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl. There is a > trailing > whitespace above... > Sure > > > > + * To check if given numa node is present. > > + */ > > +static int is_node_present(int node) > > +{ > > + return numa_bitmask_isbitset(numa_nodes_ptr, node); > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * To check given numa node has cpus. > > + */ > > +static bool node_has_cpus(int node) > > +{ > > + struct bitmask *cpu = numa_allocate_cpumask(); > > + unsigned int i; > > + > > + if (cpu == NULL) > > + return false; /* lets fall back to nocpus safely > > */ > > + > > + if (numa_node_to_cpus(node, cpu) == 0) { > This can be simplified to: > if (cpu && !numa_node_to_cpus(node, cpu)) { > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < cpu->size; i++) { > > + if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(cpu, i)) > > + return true; > > + } > > + } > The indentation on those brackets look to be wrong. > Sure > > > > + > > + return false; > > +} > > + > More importantly, you've introduced few functions in this patch, but > none of those are being used. This is not a useful way to split your > patches. In fact, this hurts bisect since trying to build perf with > just > this patch applied throws errors. > Sure, This can be merged to single patch, will do it in next version.
> You seem to be addressing a few different issues related to perf > bench > numa. You might want to split your patch based on the specific > issue(s) > each change fixes. > > > - Naveen > > Regards, -Satheesh. > > > > static cpu_set_t bind_to_cpu(int target_cpu) > > { > > cpu_set_t orig_mask, mask;
| |