On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:47:54PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On 1/24/2021 6:57 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:21:36PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> >
> > sNIP
> >
> > > mask = hashmap__new(pkg_id_hash, pkg_id_equal, NULL);
> > > d = cpu_map__get_die(cpus, cpu, NULL).die;
> > > key = (size_t)d << KEY_SHIFT | s; /* s is socket id */
> > > if (hashmap__find(mask, (void *)key, NULL))
> > > *skip = true;
> > > else
> > > ret = hashmap__add(mask, (void *)key, (void *)1);
> > >
> > > If we use 'unsigned long' to replace 'size_t', it reports the build error
> > > for 32 bits:
> > >
> > > stat.c:320:23: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘hashmap__new’ from
> > > incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> > > mask = hashmap__new(pkg_id_hash, pkg_id_equal, NULL);
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from stat.c:16:
> > > hashmap.h:75:17: note: expected ‘hashmap_hash_fn’ {aka ‘unsigned int
> > > (*)(const void *, void *)’} but argument is of type ‘long unsigned int
> > > (*)(const void *, void *)’
> > >
> > > If we use "unsigned int", it's not good for 64 bits. So I still use
> > > 'size_t' in this patch.
> > >
> > > Any comments for this idea (using conditional compilation)?
> >
> > isn't it simpler to allocate the key then? like below
> > (just compile tested)
> >
> > jirka
> >
>
> Hmm, Each method has advantages and disadvantages.
>
> My method uses conditional compilation but it looks a bit complicated. The
> advantage is it doesn't need to allocate the memory for key.
>
> If you need me to post v8, I'd love to.
>
> Anyway, either method is fine for me. :)
I believe that the less ifdefs te better, if you could squash this
change with your patch and send it, that'd be great
SNIP
> > + return *key & 0xffffffff;
> > }
> > -static bool pkg_id_equal(const void *key1, const void *key2,
> > +static bool pkg_id_equal(const void *__key1, const void *__key2,
> > void *ctx __maybe_unused)
> > {
> > - return (size_t)key1 == (size_t)key2;
> > + uint64_t *key1 = (uint64_t*) __key1;
> > + uint64_t *key2 = (uint64_t*) __key2;
> > +
> > + return *key1 == *key2;
> > }
> > static int check_per_pkg(struct evsel *counter,
> > @@ -297,7 +309,7 @@ static int check_per_pkg(struct evsel *counter,
> > struct hashmap *mask = counter->per_pkg_mask;
> > struct perf_cpu_map *cpus = evsel__cpus(counter);
> > int s, d, ret = 0;
> > - size_t key;
> > + uint64_t *key;
> > *skip = false;
> > @@ -338,7 +350,11 @@ static int check_per_pkg(struct evsel *counter,
> > if (d < 0)
> > return -1;
> > - key = (size_t)d << 16 | s;
> > + key = malloc(sizeof(*key));
> > + if (!key)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + *key = (size_t)d << 32 | s;
>
> Should be "*key = (uint64_t)d << 32 | s;"?
yes, I missed this bit
thanks,
jirka
