[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274804315.5882.1821.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:18:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: eranian@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
paulus@...ba.org, davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com,
acme@...radead.org, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix event scheduling issues introduced by
transactional API (take 2)
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 18:10 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/perf_event.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
> > @@ -668,15 +668,9 @@ group_sched_in(struct perf_event *group_
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - if (!txn)
> > + if (!txn || !pmu->commit_txn(pmu))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - ret = pmu->commit_txn(pmu);
> > - if (!ret) {
> > - pmu->cancel_txn(pmu);
> > - return 0;
> > - }
> > -
> > group_error:
> > /*
> > * Groups can be scheduled in as one unit only, so undo any
> >
> Looks okay.
>
> I believe you can also drop the txn test in group_sched_in() after group_error:,
> given you have the if !(txn) return 0.
Can't we still get in the group_error: branch with either scenario?
!txn will get there if ->enable() of a group sibling fails,
txn will get there if either ->enable() or ->commit_txn() fails.
(Although typically ->enable() would not fail for txn)
--
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