Re: [PATCH 13/13 v4] perf tools: add thread field

From: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>,
	John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13 v4] perf tools: add thread field
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:53:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c8673aed-4cf6-780b-de96-e6d8987fc3a1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201115211714.GA1081385@krava>

On 15/11/2020 23:17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 07:26:54PM +0200, James Clark wrote:
>> A separate field isn't strictly required. The core
>> field could be re-used for thread IDs as a single
>> field was used previously.
>>
>> But separating them will avoid confusion and catch
>> potential errors where core IDs are read as thread
>> IDs and vice versa.
>>
>> Also remove the placeholder id field which is now
>> no longer used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
>> Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/tests/topology.c    |  8 ++++----
>>  tools/perf/util/cpumap.c       | 14 +++++++-------
>>  tools/perf/util/cpumap.h       |  2 +-
>>  tools/perf/util/stat-display.c |  8 ++++----
>>  4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/topology.c b/tools/perf/tests/topology.c
>> index 694f786a77f3..2276db0b1b6f 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/topology.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/topology.c
>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int check_cpu_topology(char *path, struct perf_cpu_map *map)
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Core map - Die ID doesn't match",
>>  			session->header.env.cpu[map->map[i]].die_id == id.die);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Core map - Node ID is set", id.node == -1);
>> -		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Core map - ID is set", id.id == -1);
>> +		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Core map - Thread is set", id.thread == -1);
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	// Test that die ID contains socket and die
>> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static int check_cpu_topology(char *path, struct perf_cpu_map *map)
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Die map - Die ID doesn't match",
>>  			session->header.env.cpu[map->map[i]].die_id == id.die);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Die map - Node ID is set", id.node == -1);
>> -		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Die map - ID is set", id.id == -1);
>> +		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Die map - Thread is set", id.thread == -1);
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	// Test that socket ID contains only socket
>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static int check_cpu_topology(char *path, struct perf_cpu_map *map)
>>  			session->header.env.cpu[map->map[i]].socket_id == id.socket);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Socket map - Node ID is set", id.node == -1);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Socket map - Die ID is set", id.die == -1);
>> -		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Socket map - ID is set", id.id == -1);
>> +		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Socket map - Thread is set", id.thread == -1);
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	// Test that node ID contains only node
>> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int check_cpu_topology(char *path, struct perf_cpu_map *map)
>>  		id = cpu_map__get_node(map, i, NULL);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Node map - Node ID doesn't match",
>>  			cpu__get_node(map->map[i]) == id.node);
>> -		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Node map - ID shouldn't be set", id.id == -1);
>> +		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Node map - Thread shouldn't be set", id.thread == -1);
>>  		TEST_ASSERT_VAL("Node map - Die ID is set", id.die == -1);
>>  	}
> 
> should we test all unset parts are -1, like here id.core,
> id.socket and there are missing tests also in above code

Yes I think that's a good idea. I added all the missing ones in V5.

Thanks for the review.

James

> 
> jirka
> 