Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf tools: Cope with sparsely-numbered CPUs
From: Anton Blanchard
Date: Tue Jan 19 2010 - 21:29:04 EST
> > For system-wide monitoring, the perf tools currently ask how many CPUs are
> > online, and then instantiate perf_events for CPUs 0 ... N-1. This doesn't
> > work correctly when CPUs are numbered sparsely. For example, a four-core
> > POWER6 in single-thread mode will have CPUs 0, 2, 4 and 6. The perf tools
> > will try to open counters on CPUs 0, 1, 2 and 3, and either fail with an
> > error message or silently ignore CPUs 4 and 6.
> > This fixes the problem by making perf stat, perf record and perf top
> > create counters for increasing CPU numbers until they have a counter
> > for each online CPU. If the attempt to create a counter on a given
> > CPU fails, we get an ENODEV error and we just move on to the next CPU.
> > To avoid an infinite loop in case the number of online CPUs gets
> > reduced while we are creating counters, we re-read the number of
> > online CPUs when we fail to create a counter on some CPU.
> > Reported-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/perf/builtin-record.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > tools/perf/builtin-stat.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > tools/perf/builtin-top.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> nice fix!
> The linecount bloat is a bit worrying though. I'm wondering, since we have 3
> loops now (and possibly more upcoming), wouldnt it be a cleaner fix to have
> some generic idiom of 'loop through all online cpus' somewhere in lib/*.c?
> This would work better in the long run than spreading all the sysconf calls
> and special cases across all those callsites. (new tools will inevitably get
> it wrong as well)
> As a practical matter we can commit your fix and do the cleanup/consolidation
> as a separate patch, to not hold up your fix (and to help fix/bisect any
> problems that would happen due to the consolidation) - as long as a
> consolidation patch is forthcoming as well.
It looks like this hasn't made it to mainline. Any chance we could get
it in and look at a cleanup post 2.6.33?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/