[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54EB5A1F.70306@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:49:35 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: Remove redundant calls to perf_pmu_{dis|en}able
Hi Peter:
On 2/18/15 10:45 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> perf_pmu_disable is called before pmu->add and perf_pmu_enable is called
> afterwards. No need to call these inside of x86_pmu_add as well.
Does this make sense or did I miss something about the
pmu_enable/disable functions?
David
>
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index b71a7f86d68a..2d1675816bef 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1033,7 +1033,6 @@ static int x86_pmu_add(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>
> hwc = &event->hw;
>
> - perf_pmu_disable(event->pmu);
> n0 = cpuc->n_events;
> ret = n = collect_events(cpuc, event, false);
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -1071,7 +1070,6 @@ static int x86_pmu_add(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>
> ret = 0;
> out:
> - perf_pmu_enable(event->pmu);
> return ret;
> }
>
>
--
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