[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3vd3o5g9u.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:19:25 +0100
From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: How about limiting refresh ioctl to sampling events ?
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:01 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> I'm looking at the perf event stuff and wondering if
>
>> perf_event_refresh() should be limited to sampling events.
>>
>> Does the following make sense ?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
>> index 3b105e0..1a90a6c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
>> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
>> @@ -1072,7 +1072,7 @@ static int perf_event_refresh(struct perf_event *event, int refresh)
>> /*
>> * not supported on inherited events
>> */
>> - if (event->attr.inherit)
>> + if (event->attr.inherit || !event->attr.sample_period)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> atomic_add(refresh, &event->event_limit);
>
> Yes it does, please submit as a proper patch.
Ok.
I'm also wondering if you would accept a second patch which will
introduce:
static inline bool is_sampling_event(struct perf_event *event)
{
return event->attr.sample_period != 0;
}
That would make the code slighlty easier to read IMHO.
--
Franck
--
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