[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151120094645.GD897@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:46:45 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: acme@...hat.com, kan.liang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
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
--
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