[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55F62250.7050605@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:26:40 +0800
From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/13] perf_env/CPU socket reorg/fixes
On 2015/9/11 21:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:20:54PM +0800, Wangnan (F) escreveu:
>> I have tested patch 1 to 10. They looks good to me except patch 4/13. Please
> Ok, I'll take that as a Tested-by: you for 1-10 with 4/13 having the
> checks added, ok?
Sure.
Tested-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com> // for patch 1-10 except 4
>> see my email in that thread.
> I add those checks.
>
>> However, during the testing I found a limitation related to cpu
>> online/offline and 'perf top' that, if I offline most of cores before
>> 'perf top', then online them during 'perf top' running, 'perf top'
>> dooesn't report new CPUs. It still reports the CPUs which are online
> <SNIP>
>
>> However, It is relatively a rare case. I don't think we have to fix it
>> in this patchset.
> Yup, unrelated to this patchset. But we need to seamlessly support that
> situation, even telling the user that a CPU went offline/online.
>
> - Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists