[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290519980.2072.404.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:46:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@...il.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
Subject: Re: How about limiting refresh ioctl to sampling events ?
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:19 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> 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.
>
Sure, Francis might want that too, he found another something like this.
--
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