[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58a3caa6-0ba9-773b-9f99-1e4be5ff77fb@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:18:27 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf vendor events: Add stepping in CPUID string for
x86
On 11/15/2018 9:26 AM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2018 8:53 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 01:24:15PM -0800, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/header.c
>>> b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/header.c
>>> index fb0d71afee8b..b428a4b00bf7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/header.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/util/header.c
>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>> #include <string.h>
>>> +#include <regex.h>
>>> #include "../../util/header.h"
>>> @@ -70,9 +71,73 @@ get_cpuid_str(struct perf_pmu *pmu __maybe_unused)
>>> {
>>> char *buf = malloc(128);
>>> - if (buf && __get_cpuid(buf, 128, "%s-%u-%X$") < 0) {
>>> + if (buf && __get_cpuid(buf, 128, "%s-%u-%X-%X$") < 0) {
>>> free(buf);
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>> return buf;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +/* Full CPUID format for x86 is vendor-family-model-stepping */
>>> +static bool is_full_cpuid(const char *cpuid)
>>> +{
>>> + const char *tmp = cpuid;
>>> + int count = 0;
>>> +
>>> + while ((tmp = strchr(tmp, '-')) != NULL) {
>>> + count++;
>>> + tmp++;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (count == 3)
>>> + return true;
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int strcmp_cpuid_str(const char *mapcpuid, const char *cpuid)
>>> +{
>>> + regex_t re;
>>> + regmatch_t pmatch[1];
>>> + int match;
>>> + bool full_mapcpuid = is_full_cpuid(mapcpuid);
>>> + bool full_cpuid = is_full_cpuid(cpuid);
>>
>> cpuid will be always full from now right? why do we need to check it?
>>
>
> User may set cpuid by environment string "PERF_CPUID", which may not be
> full format.
>
>> also please move this to arch/x86/util/pmu.c
>> so it matches the weak function object
>
> Sure.
>
It looks like both pmu.c and header.c have cpuid related functions.
For example,
get_cpuid_str() has weak function in pmu.c. It's declaration in
header.h. It's x86 specific function in x86/util/header.c
get_cpuid() has weak function in header.c. It's declaration in header.h.
It's x86 specific function in x86/util/header.c
It looks like most of the cpuid related functions are in header.c/h.
I think it may be better to move all the cpuid related functions to
header.c/h.
If it's OK for you, I will send a clean up patch later to move the weak
functions strcmp_cpuid_str() and get_cpuid_str() to header.c
What do you think?
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists