[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130619152844.GA9176@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:28:44 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tracing/perf: perf_trace_buf/perf_xxx hacks.
On 06/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I'm probably missing something obviuos, but what are we trying to do?
Say, "perf record -e sched:sched_switch -p1".
Every task except /sbin/init will do perf_trace_sched_switch() and
perf_trace_buf_prepare() + perf_trace_buf_submit for no reason(),
it doesn't have a counter.
So it makes sense to add the fast-path check at the start of
perf_trace_##call(),
if (hlist_empty(event_call->perf_events))
return;
The problem is, we should not do this if __task != NULL (iow, if
DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS() uses __perf_task()), perf_tp_event() has the
additional code for this case.
So we should do
if (!__task && hlist_empty(event_call->perf_events))
return;
But __task is changed by "{ assign; }" block right before
perf_trace_buf_submit(). Too late for the fast-path check,
we already called perf_trace_buf_prepare/fetch_regs.
So. After 2/3 __perf_task() (and __perf_count/addr) is called
when ftrace_get_offsets_##call(args) evaluates the arguments,
and we can check !__task && hlist_empty() right after that.
Oleg.
--
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