[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140924125349.GB2805@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:53:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 08/16] perf, x86: track number of events that use LBR
callstack
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:09:05AM -0400, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> @@ -204,9 +204,15 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_sched_task(struct perf_event_context *ctx, bool sched_in)
> }
> }
>
> +static inline bool branch_user_callstack(unsigned br_sel)
> +{
> + return (br_sel & X86_BR_USER) && (br_sel & X86_BR_CALL_STACK);
> +}
> +
> void intel_pmu_lbr_enable(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);
> + struct x86_perf_task_context *task_ctx;
>
> if (!x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
> return;
> @@ -220,6 +226,10 @@ void intel_pmu_lbr_enable(struct perf_event *event)
> }
> cpuc->br_sel = event->hw.branch_reg.reg;
>
> + task_ctx = event->ctx ? event->ctx->task_ctx_data : NULL;
> + if (task_ctx && branch_user_callstack(cpuc->br_sel))
> + task_ctx->lbr_callstack_users++;
> +
Does it make sense to flip those conditions to avoid a potentially
useless dereference?
--
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