lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Fix failure to set cpumask when only one cpu
From
Date


On 8/2/19 9:06 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 04:29:51PM +0800, zhe.he@windriver.com wrote:
>> From: He Zhe <zhe.he@windriver.com>
>>
>> The buffer containing string used to set cpumask is overwritten by end of
>> string later in cpu_map__snprint_mask due to not enough memory space, when
>> there is only one cpu. And thus causes the following failure.
>>
>> $ perf ftrace ls
>> failed to reset ftrace
>>
>> This patch fixes the calculation of cpumask string size.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe.he@windriver.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c b/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
>> index 66d5a66..0193128 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-ftrace.c
>> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static int set_tracing_cpumask(struct cpu_map *cpumap)
>> int last_cpu;
>>
>> last_cpu = cpu_map__cpu(cpumap, cpumap->nr - 1);
>> - mask_size = (last_cpu + 3) / 4 + 1;
>> + mask_size = last_cpu / 4 + 2; /* one more byte for EOS */
>> mask_size += last_cpu / 32; /* ',' is needed for every 32th cpus */
> ugh.. why do we care about last_cpu value in here at all?
>
> feels like using static buffer would be more reasonable

Thanks, and yes, a static buffer would be easy to handle. A 2KB buffer is enough
to cover 8196 cpus, the maximum numbers of cpus we can run with for now.

Let's see if there is any other concerns.

Zhe

>
> jirka
>
>>
>> cpumask = malloc(mask_size);
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-03 07:35    [W:0.076 / U:58.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site