From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754799AbdKNMsS (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:48:18 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:37494 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754706AbdKNMsC (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:48:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf/bench/numa: Add functions to detect sparse numa nodes From: Satheesh Rajendran To: "Naveen N. Rao" Cc: acme@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20171031151453.pe2ef33hyjl6bcxo@naverao1-tp.localdomain> References: <855c8ed2d15135f2ac32105f60a745a4fd14036b.1503310062.git.sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171031151453.pe2ef33hyjl6bcxo@naverao1-tp.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:17:46 +0530 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17111412-0036-0000-0000-0000028BF96F X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008065; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000240; SDB=6.00945732; UDB=6.00477315; IPR=6.00726029; BA=6.00005689; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00018009; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2017-11-14 12:48:01 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17111412-0037-0000-0000-00004260C7E0 Message-Id: <1510663666.24275.41.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-11-14_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1711140175 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Naveen,Thanks for detailed review, my comments inline. On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 20:44 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > Hi Satheesh, > > On 2017/08/21 10:15AM, sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > > From: Satheesh Rajendran > > > > Added functions 1) to get a count of all nodes that are exposed to > > userspace. These nodes could be memoryless cpu nodes or cpuless > > memory > > nodes, 2) to check given node is present and 3) to check given > > node has cpus > > > > This information can be used to handle sparse/discontiguous nodes. > > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju > > Signed-off-by: Satheesh Rajendran > > Signed-off-by: Balamuruhan S > > --- > >  tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 44 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > index 469d65b..2483174 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c > > @@ -215,6 +215,50 @@ static const char * const numa_usage[] = { > >   NULL > >  }; > > > > +/* > > + * To get number of numa nodes present. > > + */ > > +static int nr_numa_nodes(void) > > +{ > > + int i, nr_nodes = 0; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < g->p.nr_nodes; i++) { > > + if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(numa_nodes_ptr, i)) > > + nr_nodes++; > > + } > > + > > + return nr_nodes; > > +} > > + > > +/*  > Please run patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl. There is a > trailing  > whitespace above... > Sure > > > > + * To check if given numa node is present. > > + */ > > +static int is_node_present(int node) > > +{ > > + return numa_bitmask_isbitset(numa_nodes_ptr, node); > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * To check given numa node has cpus. > > + */ > > +static bool node_has_cpus(int node) > > +{ > > + struct bitmask *cpu = numa_allocate_cpumask(); > > + unsigned int i; > > + > > + if (cpu == NULL) > > + return false; /* lets fall back to nocpus safely > > */ > > + > > + if (numa_node_to_cpus(node, cpu) == 0) { > This can be simplified to: > if (cpu && !numa_node_to_cpus(node, cpu)) { > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < cpu->size; i++) { > > + if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(cpu, i)) > > + return true; > > + } > > + } > The indentation on those brackets look to be wrong. > Sure > > > > + > > + return false; > > +} > > + > More importantly, you've introduced few functions in this patch, but  > none of those are being used. This is not a useful way to split your  > patches. In fact, this hurts bisect since trying to build perf with > just  > this patch applied throws errors. > Sure, This can be merged to single patch, will do it in next version. > You seem to be addressing a few different issues related to perf > bench  > numa. You might want to split your patch based on the specific > issue(s)  > each change fixes. > > > - Naveen > > Regards, -Satheesh. > > > >  static cpu_set_t bind_to_cpu(int target_cpu) > >  { > >   cpu_set_t orig_mask, mask;