[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1271889502.7414.14.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:38:22 +0000
From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "eranian@...il.com" <eranian@...il.com>,
"Gary.Mohr@...l.com" <Gary.Mohr@...l.com>,
Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:22 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:12 +0000, Lin Ming wrote:
> > + ret = pmu->commit_txn(pmu);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + pmu->stop_txn(pmu);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> >
> > group_error:
> > + pmu->stop_txn(pmu);
>
> If you let commit_txn() also clear the state you can save some logic and
> a method.
I add this ->stop_txn(pmu) because the rollback code also need to clear
the state.
>
> But yes, this looks good. If you don't remove the weak interface just
> yet, you can do a patch per architecture that uses this (at least
> powerpc and sparc do), and remove the weak thing at the end once all
> users are gone.
>
OK, I'll do that for powerpc and sparc.
And need to check if there are transaction methods in group_sched_in for
other arch, as below.
group_sched_in(...)
{
if (pmu->start_txn)
pmu->start_txn(pmu);
if (pmu->commit_txn)
pmu->commit_txn(pmu)
}
Thanks,
Lin Ming
--
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