Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] perf utils: use pmu->is_uncore to detect PMU UNCORE devices

[Jin, Yao]

On 12/6/2017 2:42 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:35:22PM +0800, Jin, Yao escreveu:
> > A quick test with the new patch 'fix_json_v9_2.patch' shows it working.
>
> I'll take this as a Tested-by: you, ok?
>   

Hi Arnaldo,

I didn't do a full test for this patch and for the whole patch series.

I just do a quick test and it shows that the regression issue which was 
found in 'perf stat --per-thread' test case is disappear.

If you think it's enough for adding Tested-by, that's fine for me. :)

Thanks
Jin Yao

> > See the log:
> >
> > root@skl:/tmp# perf stat --per-thread -p 10322 -M CPI,IPC
> > ^C
> >   Performance counter stats for process id '10322':
> >
> >            vmstat-10322             1,879,654      inst_retired.any #
> > 0.8 CPI
> >            vmstat-10322             1,565,807      cycles
> >            vmstat-10322             1,879,654      inst_retired.any #
> > 1.2 IPC
> >            vmstat-10322             1,565,807      cpu_clk_unhalted.thread
> >
> >         2.850291804 seconds time elapsed
> >
> > Thanks for fixing it quickly.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jin Yao
> >
> > On 12/5/2017 3:23 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I applied the diff but it's failed.
> > >
> > > jinyao@skl:~/skl-ws/perf-dev/lck-4594/src$ patch -p1 < 1.pat
> > > patching file tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> > > patch: **** malformed patch at line 41: *head, struct perf_pmu *pmu)
> > >
> > > Could you send the patch as attachment to me in another mail thread?
> > >
> > > to yao.jin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > cc yao.jin@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Jin Yao
> > >
> > > On 12/5/2017 3:12 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> > > > index 5ad8a18..57e38fd 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/pmu.c
> > > > @@ -538,6 +538,34 @@ static bool pmu_is_uncore(const char *name)
> > > >  Â }
> > > >
> > > >  Â /*
> > > > + *Â PMU CORE devices have different name other than cpu in sysfs on some
> > > > + *Â platforms. looking for possible sysfs files to identify as core
> > > > device.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int is_pmu_core(const char *name)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct stat st;
> > > > + char path[PATH_MAX];
> > > > + const char *sysfs = sysfs__mountpoint();
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!sysfs)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Look for cpu sysfs (x86 and others) */
> > > > + scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/bus/event_source/devices/cpu", sysfs);
> > > > + if ((stat(path, &st) == 0) &&
> > > > + (strncmp(name, "cpu", strlen("cpu")) == 0))
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Look for cpu sysfs (specific to arm) */
> > > > + scnprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/bus/event_source/devices/%s/cpus",
> > > > + sysfs, name);
> > > > + if (stat(path, &st) == 0)
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > >  ÂÂ * Return the CPU id as a raw string.
> > > >  ÂÂ *
> > > >  ÂÂ * Each architecture should provide a more precise id string that
> > > > @@ -641,7 +669,7 @@ static void pmu_add_cpu_aliases(struct list_head
> > > > *head, struct perf_pmu *pmu)
> > > >  ÂÂ break;
> > > >  ÂÂ }
> > > >
> > > > - if (pmu->is_uncore) {
> > > > + if (!is_pmu_core(name)) {
> > > >  ÂÂ /* check for uncore devices */
> > > >  ÂÂ if (pe->pmu == NULL)
> > > >  ÂÂ continue;