| Message ID | 20211208024607.1784932-22-irogers@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Refactor perf cpumap | expand |
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:46:06PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > cpu_aggr_map__new removes duplicates, when this happens shrink the > array. > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> > --- > tools/perf/util/cpumap.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > index 8a72ee996722..985c87f1f1ca 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > @@ -185,7 +185,12 @@ struct cpu_aggr_map *cpu_aggr_map__new(const struct perf_cpu_map *cpus, > c->nr++; > } > } > - > + /* Trim. */ > + if (c->nr != cpus->nr) { > + c = realloc(c, sizeof(struct cpu_aggr_map) + sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id) * c->nr); > + if (!c) > + return NULL; > + } curious.. we should do this, but did you detect some big waste in here? thanks, jirka > /* ensure we process id in increasing order */ > qsort(c->map, c->nr, sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id), aggr_cpu_id__cmp); > > -- > 2.34.1.400.ga245620fadb-goog >
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 11:24 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:46:06PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > cpu_aggr_map__new removes duplicates, when this happens shrink the > > array. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> > > --- > > tools/perf/util/cpumap.c | 7 ++++++- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > > index 8a72ee996722..985c87f1f1ca 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c > > @@ -185,7 +185,12 @@ struct cpu_aggr_map *cpu_aggr_map__new(const struct perf_cpu_map *cpus, > > c->nr++; > > } > > } > > - > > + /* Trim. */ > > + if (c->nr != cpus->nr) { > > + c = realloc(c, sizeof(struct cpu_aggr_map) + sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id) * c->nr); > > + if (!c) > > + return NULL; > > + } > > curious.. we should do this, but did you detect some big waste in here? No real size implications, but I was after coaxing address sanitizer into detecting potential index out of bounds problems. Thanks, Ian > thanks, > jirka > > > /* ensure we process id in increasing order */ > > qsort(c->map, c->nr, sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id), aggr_cpu_id__cmp); > > > > -- > > 2.34.1.400.ga245620fadb-goog > > >
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c index 8a72ee996722..985c87f1f1ca 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/cpumap.c @@ -185,7 +185,12 @@ struct cpu_aggr_map *cpu_aggr_map__new(const struct perf_cpu_map *cpus, c->nr++; } } - + /* Trim. */ + if (c->nr != cpus->nr) { + c = realloc(c, sizeof(struct cpu_aggr_map) + sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id) * c->nr); + if (!c) + return NULL; + } /* ensure we process id in increasing order */ qsort(c->map, c->nr, sizeof(struct aggr_cpu_id), aggr_cpu_id__cmp);
cpu_aggr_map__new removes duplicates, when this happens shrink the array. Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> --- tools/perf/util/cpumap.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)