[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200111094926.006892306@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 10:49:36 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 057/165] perf header: Fix false warning when there are no duplicate cache entries
From: Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
[ Upstream commit 28707826877f84bce0977845ea529cbdd08e4e8d ]
Before this patch, perf expected that there might be NPROC*4 unique
cache entries at max, however, it also expected that some of them would
be shared and/or of the same size, thus the final number of entries
would be reduced to be lower than NPROC*4. In case the number of entries
hadn't been reduced (was NPROC*4), the warning was printed.
However, some systems might have unusual cache topology, such as the
following two-processor KVM guest:
cpu level shared_cpu_list size
0 1 0 32K
0 1 0 64K
0 2 0 512K
0 3 0 8192K
1 1 1 32K
1 1 1 64K
1 2 1 512K
1 3 1 8192K
This KVM guest has 8 (NPROC*4) unique cache entries, which used to make
perf printing the message, although there actually aren't "way too many
cpu caches".
v2: Removing unused argument.
v3: Unifying the way we obtain number of cpus.
v4: Removed '& UINT_MAX' construct which is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
LPU-Reference: 20191208162056.20772-1-mpetlan@...hat.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
tools/perf/util/header.c | 21 ++++++---------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c
index becc2d109423..d3412f2c0d18 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/header.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c
@@ -1089,21 +1089,18 @@ static void cpu_cache_level__fprintf(FILE *out, struct cpu_cache_level *c)
fprintf(out, "L%d %-15s %8s [%s]\n", c->level, c->type, c->size, c->map);
}
-static int build_caches(struct cpu_cache_level caches[], u32 size, u32 *cntp)
+#define MAX_CACHE_LVL 4
+
+static int build_caches(struct cpu_cache_level caches[], u32 *cntp)
{
u32 i, cnt = 0;
- long ncpus;
u32 nr, cpu;
u16 level;
- ncpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF);
- if (ncpus < 0)
- return -1;
-
- nr = (u32)(ncpus & UINT_MAX);
+ nr = cpu__max_cpu();
for (cpu = 0; cpu < nr; cpu++) {
- for (level = 0; level < 10; level++) {
+ for (level = 0; level < MAX_CACHE_LVL; level++) {
struct cpu_cache_level c;
int err;
@@ -1123,18 +1120,12 @@ static int build_caches(struct cpu_cache_level caches[], u32 size, u32 *cntp)
caches[cnt++] = c;
else
cpu_cache_level__free(&c);
-
- if (WARN_ONCE(cnt == size, "way too many cpu caches.."))
- goto out;
}
}
- out:
*cntp = cnt;
return 0;
}
-#define MAX_CACHE_LVL 4
-
static int write_cache(struct feat_fd *ff,
struct evlist *evlist __maybe_unused)
{
@@ -1143,7 +1134,7 @@ static int write_cache(struct feat_fd *ff,
u32 cnt = 0, i, version = 1;
int ret;
- ret = build_caches(caches, max_caches, &cnt);
+ ret = build_caches(caches, &cnt);
if (ret)
goto out;
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists