| Message ID | 20210912154538.255217-1-jkacur@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
Hi John, John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> writes: > This is based on an idea from Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > > On architectures that lack 'model name' in /proc/cpuinfo > create 'model name' Unknown when creating the per core dictionaries > in cpuinfo > > For arm, we can construct the 'model name' from the > 'CPU implementer' > 'CPU architecture' > 'CPU variant' > 'CPU part' > 'CPU revision' > > Suggested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> > --- > rteval/misc.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/rteval/misc.py b/rteval/misc.py > index 0dd361ff19fd..c1d2a972430d 100644 > --- a/rteval/misc.py > +++ b/rteval/misc.py > @@ -77,6 +77,27 @@ def cpuinfo(): > info[core] = {} > continue > info[core][key] = val > + > + for (core, pcdict) in info.items(): > + if not 'model name' in pcdict: > + # On Arm CPU implementer is present > + # Construct the model_name from the following fields > + if 'CPU implementer' in pcdict: > + model_name = [pcdict.get('CPU implementer')] > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU architecture')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU variant')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU part')) > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU revision', '')) Is there a reason to use an empty default for "CPU revision" but not for the other components? Maybe a left-over from original patch. > + > + # If a list item is None, remove it > + model_name = [name for name in model_name if name] > + > + # Convert the model_name list into a string > + model_name = " ".join(model_name) > + pcdict['model name'] = model_name > + else: > + pcdict['model name'] = 'Unknown' > + > return info > > if __name__ == "__main__": With the above comment addressed, fwiw - Reviewed-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> Thanks, Punit
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Punit Agrawal wrote: > Hi John, > > John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> writes: > > > This is based on an idea from Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > > > > On architectures that lack 'model name' in /proc/cpuinfo > > create 'model name' Unknown when creating the per core dictionaries > > in cpuinfo > > > > For arm, we can construct the 'model name' from the > > 'CPU implementer' > > 'CPU architecture' > > 'CPU variant' > > 'CPU part' > > 'CPU revision' > > > > Suggested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > > Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> > > --- > > rteval/misc.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/rteval/misc.py b/rteval/misc.py > > index 0dd361ff19fd..c1d2a972430d 100644 > > --- a/rteval/misc.py > > +++ b/rteval/misc.py > > @@ -77,6 +77,27 @@ def cpuinfo(): > > info[core] = {} > > continue > > info[core][key] = val > > + > > + for (core, pcdict) in info.items(): > > + if not 'model name' in pcdict: > > + # On Arm CPU implementer is present > > + # Construct the model_name from the following fields > > + if 'CPU implementer' in pcdict: > > + model_name = [pcdict.get('CPU implementer')] > > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU architecture')) > > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU variant')) > > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU part')) > > + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU revision', '')) > > Is there a reason to use an empty default for "CPU revision" but not for > the other components? Maybe a left-over from original patch. Not sure of the origin of that typo, but thanks for catching it, removing. > > > + > > + # If a list item is None, remove it > > + model_name = [name for name in model_name if name] > > + > > + # Convert the model_name list into a string > > + model_name = " ".join(model_name) > > + pcdict['model name'] = model_name > > + else: > > + pcdict['model name'] = 'Unknown' > > + > > return info > > > > if __name__ == "__main__": > > With the above comment addressed, fwiw - > > Reviewed-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> > > Thanks, > Punit >
diff --git a/rteval/misc.py b/rteval/misc.py index 0dd361ff19fd..c1d2a972430d 100644 --- a/rteval/misc.py +++ b/rteval/misc.py @@ -77,6 +77,27 @@ def cpuinfo(): info[core] = {} continue info[core][key] = val + + for (core, pcdict) in info.items(): + if not 'model name' in pcdict: + # On Arm CPU implementer is present + # Construct the model_name from the following fields + if 'CPU implementer' in pcdict: + model_name = [pcdict.get('CPU implementer')] + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU architecture')) + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU variant')) + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU part')) + model_name.append(pcdict.get('CPU revision', '')) + + # If a list item is None, remove it + model_name = [name for name in model_name if name] + + # Convert the model_name list into a string + model_name = " ".join(model_name) + pcdict['model name'] = model_name + else: + pcdict['model name'] = 'Unknown' + return info if __name__ == "__main__":
This is based on an idea from Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> On architectures that lack 'model name' in /proc/cpuinfo create 'model name' Unknown when creating the per core dictionaries in cpuinfo For arm, we can construct the 'model name' from the 'CPU implementer' 'CPU architecture' 'CPU variant' 'CPU part' 'CPU revision' Suggested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> --- rteval/misc.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)