[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110093207.GA5255@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:32:10 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] perf/core: Split up pinned and non pinned
processing
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:11:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Split up pinned and non-pinned events processing in two helpers
> > so that it's more flexible to handle them seperately.
>
> > +static void
> > +__perf_event_sched_in_volatile(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> > + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
>
> Small naming suggestion: 'volatile' is a C keyword and rarely used
> outside of that context in the kernel, which makes this function name a
> bit confusing.
>
> So instead of pinned/volatile, a pinned/flexible naming would be more
> readable, i.e. __perf_event_sched_in_flexible() or so.
Right, also that makes it consistent with the hw-breakpoint constraints
naming.
> Also, most of the static functions in kernel/perf_event.c could lose
> their perf_event_ prefix - we already know it's a perf thing, right?
> That will shorten quite a few function names there.
>
> These functions would turn into __sched_in_pinned()/__sched_in_flexible().
>
> Agreed?
Totally.
I'll prepare a new iteration, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists