[PATCH 1/5] kernel32: Fix return type of GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount

[Alex Henrie]

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie 
---
 dlls/kernel32/process.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/process.c b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
index b31d73bc5a5..9041b00d512 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/process.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
@@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorCount(WORD group)
 /***********************************************************************
  *           GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount (KERNEL32.@)
  */
-DWORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount(void)
+WORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount(void)
 {
     FIXME("semi-stub, always returning 1\n");
     return 1;

[PATCH 2/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetActiveProcessorGroupCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Alex Henrie]

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie 
---
 dlls/kernel32/process.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/process.c b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
index 9041b00d512..7020a388cda 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/process.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
@@ -609,8 +609,20 @@ HRESULT WINAPI RegisterApplicationRecoveryCallback(APPLICATION_RECOVERY_CALLBACK
  */
 WORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorGroupCount(void)
 {
-    FIXME("semi-stub, always returning 1\n");
-    return 1;
+    WORD groups;
+    DWORD size = 0;
+    SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;
+
+    TRACE("()\n");
+
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
+    if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;
+
+    groups = info->Group.ActiveGroupCount;
+
+    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
+    return groups;
 }

/***********************************************************************

[PATCH 2/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetActiveProcessorGroupCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

Alex Henrie  wrote:
> WORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorGroupCount(void)
>  {
> - FIXME("semi-stub, always returning 1\n");
> - return 1;
> - WORD groups;
> - DWORD size = 0;
> - SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;
> -
> - TRACE("()\n");
> -
> - if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
> - if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
> - if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;

Memory is leaked here.
> -
> - groups = info->Group.ActiveGroupCount;
> -
> - HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
> - return groups;
>
> }

After looking at the ntdll implementation it seems, that it should be
possible to avoid memory allocation and use buffer of a fixed size.

[PATCH 2/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetActiveProcessorGroupCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Alex Henrie]

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:58 AM Dmitry Timoshkov  wrote:
> Alex Henrie  wrote:
> > WORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorGroupCount(void)
> >  {
> > - FIXME("semi-stub, always returning 1\n");
> > - return 1;
> > - WORD groups;
> > - DWORD size = 0;
> > - SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;
> > -
> > - TRACE("()\n");
> > -
> > - if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
> > - if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
> > - if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;
>
> Memory is leaked here.

Fixed in v2, thanks.
> > -
> > - groups = info->Group.ActiveGroupCount;
> > -
> > - HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
> > - return groups;
> >
> > }
>
> After looking at the ntdll implementation it seems, that it should be
> possible to avoid memory allocation and use buffer of a fixed size.

That may be true now, but I don't know if that's what Alexandre wants
because if Wine supports an arbitrary number of processor groups in
the future, the fixed-size buffer to hold information about 65,534 of
them would require a lot of memory.

-Alex

[PATCH 3/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetActiveProcessorCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Alex Henrie]

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie 
---
 dlls/kernel32/process.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/process.c b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
index 7020a388cda..3ad63cf5371 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/process.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
@@ -630,9 +630,28 @@ WORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorGroupCount(void)
  */
 DWORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorCount(WORD group)
 {
-    DWORD cpus = system_info.NumberOfProcessors;
+    DWORD cpus = 0;
+    DWORD size = 0;
+    SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;

-    FIXME("(0x%x): semi-stub, returning %u\n", group, cpus);
+    TRACE("(0x%x)\n", group);
+
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
+    if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;
+
+    if (group == ALL_PROCESSOR_GROUPS)
+    {
+        for (group = 0; group < info->Group.ActiveGroupCount; group++)
+            cpus += info->Group.GroupInfo[group].ActiveProcessorCount;
+    }
+    else
+    {
+        if (group < info->Group.ActiveGroupCount)
+            cpus = info->Group.GroupInfo[group].ActiveProcessorCount;
+    }
+
+    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
     return cpus;
 }

[PATCH 4/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetMaximumProcessorCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Alex Henrie]

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie 
---
 dlls/kernel32/process.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/process.c b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
index 3ad63cf5371..863f2c67413 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/process.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
@@ -660,9 +660,28 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetActiveProcessorCount(WORD group)
  */
 DWORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorCount(WORD group)
 {
-    DWORD cpus = system_info.NumberOfProcessors;
+    DWORD cpus = 0;
+    DWORD size = 0;
+    SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;
+
+    TRACE("(0x%x)\n", group);

-    FIXME("(0x%x): semi-stub, returning %u\n", group, cpus);
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
+    if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;
+
+    if (group == ALL_PROCESSOR_GROUPS)
+    {
+        for (group = 0; group < info->Group.ActiveGroupCount; group++)
+            cpus += info->Group.GroupInfo[group].MaximumProcessorCount;
+    }
+    else
+    {
+        if (group < info->Group.ActiveGroupCount)
+            cpus = info->Group.GroupInfo[group].MaximumProcessorCount;
+    }
+
+    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
     return cpus;
 }

[PATCH 5/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Alex Henrie]

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie 
---
 dlls/kernel32/process.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dlls/kernel32/process.c b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
index 863f2c67413..f88a613c7b4 100644
--- a/dlls/kernel32/process.c
+++ b/dlls/kernel32/process.c
@@ -690,8 +690,20 @@ DWORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorCount(WORD group)
  */
 WORD WINAPI GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount(void)
 {
-    FIXME("semi-stub, always returning 1\n");
-    return 1;
+    WORD groups;
+    DWORD size = 0;
+    SYSTEM_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR_INFORMATION_EX *info;
+
+    TRACE("()\n");
+
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, NULL, &size)) return 0;
+    if (!(info = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, size))) return 0;
+    if (!GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx(RelationGroup, info, &size)) return 0;
+
+    groups = info->Group.MaximumGroupCount;
+
+    HeapFree(GetProcessHeap(), 0, info);
+    return groups;
 }

/***********************************************************************

[PATCH 5/5] kernel32: Reimplement GetMaximumProcessorGroupCount on top of GetLogicalProcessorInformationEx

[Marvin]

Hi,

While running your changed tests, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?

Full results can be found at:
https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=91061

Your paranoid android.

=== debiant2 (64 bit WoW report) ===

kernel32:
change.c:350: Test failed: should be ready