[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305753398.2466.7180.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 23:16:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf, x86: Fix event scheduler for constraints with
overlapping counters
So I'm mostly ok with this, just a few nits..
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 12:26 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> @@ -838,25 +877,61 @@ static int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int n, int *assign)
> for (w = 1, num = n; num && w <= wmax; w++) {
> /* for each event */
> for (i = 0; num && i < n; i++) {
> + idx = 0;
> + redo:
labels go on column 0.
> c = constraints[i];
> hwc = &cpuc->event_list[i]->hw;
>
> if (c->weight != w)
> continue;
>
> - for_each_set_bit(j, c->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> - if (!test_bit(j, used_mask))
> + /* for each bit in idxmsk starting from idx */
> + while (idx < X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> + idx = find_next_bit(c->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX,
> + idx);
I'd be mighty tempted to ignore that 80 column rule here ;-)
> + if (idx == X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)
> break;
> + if (!__test_and_set_bit(idx, used_mask))
> + break;
> + idx++;
> }
>
> - if (j == X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)
> - break;
> -
> - __set_bit(j, used_mask);
> + if (idx >= X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> + /*
> + * roll back and try to reschedule
> + * events on other counters
> + */
> + if (!state)
> + /* no events to reschedule */
> + goto done;
Multi line indents get { } even if not strictly needed, alternatively we
can place the comment on the same line as the goto.
> + state--;
> + /* restore previous state: */
> + i = sched_state[state].i;
> + w = sched_state[state].w;
> + idx = sched_state[state].idx;
> + num = sched_state[state].num;
> + bitmap_copy(used_mask, sched_state[state].used, n);
> + /* try next counter: */
> + clear_bit(idx, used_mask);
> + num++;
Suppose we put the num--; bit below the if (c->redo) block, then we can
remove this num++;, right?
> + idx++;
> + goto redo;
> + }
>
> if (assign)
> - assign[i] = j;
> + assign[i] = idx;
> +
> num--;
> +
> + if (c->redo && state < SCHED_STATES_MAX) {
> + /* store scheduler state: */
> + sched_state[state].i = i;
> + sched_state[state].w = w;
> + sched_state[state].idx = idx;
> + sched_state[state].num = num;
> + bitmap_copy(sched_state[state].used, used_mask, n);
> + state++;
> + }
> }
> }
--
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