| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:21:40 +0530
From: Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bala24@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf/bench/numa: Handle discontiguous/sparse
numa nodes
Hi Arnaldo,Please find my reply inline.
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 12:26 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:46:58PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao escreveu:
> >
> > On 2017/08/21 10:17AM, sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > Certain systems are designed to have sparse/discontiguous nodes.
> > > On such systems, perf bench numa hangs, shows wrong number of
> > > nodes
> > > and shows values for non-existent nodes. Handle this by only
> > > taking nodes that are exposed by kernel to userspace.
> > >
> > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Satheesh Rajendran <sathnaga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S <bala24@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> > > index 2483174..d4cccc4 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
> > > @@ -287,12 +287,12 @@ static cpu_set_t bind_to_cpu(int
> > > target_cpu)
> > >
> > > static cpu_set_t bind_to_node(int target_node)
> > > {
> > > - int cpus_per_node = g->p.nr_cpus/g->p.nr_nodes;
> > > + int cpus_per_node = g->p.nr_cpus/nr_numa_nodes();
> > > cpu_set_t orig_mask, mask;
> > > int cpu;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - BUG_ON(cpus_per_node*g->p.nr_nodes != g->p.nr_cpus);
> > > + BUG_ON(cpus_per_node*nr_numa_nodes() != g->p.nr_cpus);
> > > BUG_ON(!cpus_per_node);
> > >
> > > ret = sched_getaffinity(0, sizeof(orig_mask),
> > > &orig_mask);
> > > @@ -692,7 +692,7 @@ static int parse_setup_node_list(void)
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < mul; i++) {
> > > - if (t >= g->p.nr_tasks) {
> > > + if (t >= g->p.nr_tasks ||
> > > !node_has_cpus(bind_node)) {
> > > printf("\n# NOTE:
> > > ignoring bind NODEs starting at NODE#%d\n", bind_node);
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > > @@ -973,6 +973,7 @@ static void calc_convergence(double
> > > runtime_ns_max, double *convergence)
> > > int node;
> > > int cpu;
> > > int t;
> > > + int processes;
> > >
> > > if (!g->p.show_convergence && !g->p.measure_convergence)
> > > return;
> > > @@ -1007,13 +1008,14 @@ static void calc_convergence(double
> > > runtime_ns_max, double *convergence)
> > > sum = 0;
> > >
> > > for (node = 0; node < g->p.nr_nodes; node++) {
> > > + if (!is_node_present(node))
> > > + continue;
> > > nr = nodes[node];
> > > nr_min = min(nr, nr_min);
> > > nr_max = max(nr, nr_max);
> > > sum += nr;
> > > }
> > > BUG_ON(nr_min > nr_max);
> > > -
> > Looks like an un-necessary change there.
> Right, and I would leave the 'int processes' declaration where it is,
> as
> it is not used outside that loop.
>
I had hit with this compilation error, so had to move the
initialization above.
CC bench/numa.o
bench/numa.c: In function ‘calc_convergence’:
bench/numa.c:1035:3: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
[-Werror=declaration-after-statement]
int processes = count_node_processes(node);
^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
mv: cannot stat ‘bench/.numa.o.tmp’: No such file or directory
make[4]: *** [bench/numa.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** [bench] Error 2
make[2]: *** [perf-in.o] Error 2
make[1]: *** [sub-make] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
> The move of that declaration to the top of the calc_convergence()
> function made me spend some cycles trying to figure out why that was
> done, only to realize that it was an unnecessary change :-\
>
Agree, I would have kept it in the same scope, will keep as below,
@@ -984,8 +1026,11 @@ static void calc_convergence(double runtime_ns_max, double *convergence)
process_groups = 0;
for (node = 0; node < g->p.nr_nodes; node++) {
- int processes = count_node_processes(node);
+ int processes;
+ if (!is_node_present(node))
+ continue;
+ processes = count_node_processes(node);
nr = nodes[node];
tprintf(" %2d/%-2d", nr, processes);
Please advice. Thanks.
Regards,
-Satheesh.
> >
> > - Naveen
> >
> > >
> > > BUG_ON(sum > g->p.nr_tasks);
> > >
> > > if (0 && (sum < g->p.nr_tasks))
> > > @@ -1027,8 +1029,9 @@ static void calc_convergence(double
> > > runtime_ns_max, double *convergence)
> > > process_groups = 0;
> > >
> > > for (node = 0; node < g->p.nr_nodes; node++) {
> > > - int processes = count_node_processes(node);
> > > -
> > > + if (!is_node_present(node))
> > > + continue;
> > > + processes = count_node_processes(node);
> > > nr = nodes[node];
> > > tprintf(" %2d/%-2d", nr, processes);
> > >
> > > @@ -1334,7 +1337,7 @@ static void print_summary(void)
> > >
> > > printf("\n ###\n");
> > > printf(" # %d %s will execute (on %d nodes, %d
> > > CPUs):\n",
> > > - g->p.nr_tasks, g->p.nr_tasks == 1 ? "task" :
> > > "tasks", g->p.nr_nodes, g->p.nr_cpus);
> > > + g->p.nr_tasks, g->p.nr_tasks == 1 ? "task" :
> > > "tasks", nr_numa_nodes(), g->p.nr_cpus);
> > > printf(" # %5dx %5ldMB global shared mem
> > > operations\n",
> > > g->p.nr_loops, g-
> > > >p.bytes_global/1024/1024);
> > > printf(" # %5dx %5ldMB process shared mem
> > > operations\n",
Powered by blists - more mailing lists