On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:41:55PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> On 09.01.2019 19:53, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:38:23PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mmap.c b/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> >> index e5220790f1fb..ee0230eed635 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> >> @@ -377,6 +377,24 @@ void perf_mmap__munmap(struct perf_mmap *map)
> >> auxtrace_mmap__munmap(&map->auxtrace_mmap);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void perf_mmap__setup_affinity_mask(struct perf_mmap *map, struct
> >> mmap_params *mp)
> >> +{
> >> + int c, cpu, nr_cpus, node;
> >> +
> >> + CPU_ZERO(&map->affinity_mask);
> >> + if (mp->affinity == PERF_AFFINITY_NODE && cpu__max_node() > 1) {
> >> + nr_cpus = cpu_map__nr(mp->cpu_map);
> >> + node = cpu__get_node(map->cpu);
> >> + for (c = 0; c < nr_cpus; c++) {
> >> + cpu = mp->cpu_map->map[c]; /* map c index to online cpu
> >> index */
> >> + if (cpu__get_node(cpu) == node)
> >> + CPU_SET(cpu, &map->affinity_mask);
> >
> > should we do that from from all possible cpus task (perf record)
> > can run on, instead of mp->cpu_map, which might be only subset
> > (-C ... option)
>
> That is how it should be and because mp->cpu_map depends on -C option value
> in this patch set version it requires to be corrected, possibly like this:
>
> struct mmap_params mp = {
> .nr_cblocks = nr_cblocks,
> .affinity = affinity,
> .cpu_map = cpu_map__new(NULL) /* builds struct cpu_map
> from /sys/devices/system/cpu/online */
> };
> and
> if (mp->affinity == PERF_AFFINITY_NODE && cpu__max_node() > 1 &&
> mp->cpu_map)
>
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > also node -> cpu_map is static configuration, we could prepare
> > this map ahead (like cpunode_map) and just assign it in here
> > based on node index
>
> It makes sense and either way is possible. However the static configuration
> looks a bit trickier because it incurs additional mask objects duplication
> and conversion from struct cpu_map to cpu_set_t still remains the same.
ok, please at least put that node mask creation into separate function
thanks,
jirka
