[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87poydas24.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 18:06:11 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 3/5] perf: Introduce instruction trace filtering
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 03:36:36PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> +static int __perf_event_itrace_filters_setup(void *info)
>> +{
>> + struct perf_event *event = info;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (READ_ONCE(event->state) != PERF_EVENT_STATE_ACTIVE)
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> +
>> + /* matches smp_wmb() in event_sched_in() */
>> + smp_rmb();
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * There is a window with interrupts enabled before we get here,
>> + * so we need to check again lest we try to stop another cpu's event.
>> + */
>> + if (READ_ONCE(event->oncpu) != smp_processor_id())
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> +
>> + event->pmu->stop(event, PERF_EF_UPDATE);
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + ret = event->pmu->itrace_filter_setup(event);
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + event->pmu->start(event, PERF_EF_RELOAD);
>
> Would it not be more sensible to let the ::itrace_filter_setup() method
> do the stop/start-ing if and when needed?
Ok, so keeping in mind the other mails, if I add "int flags" to the
signature and have it do the stop/start when called like
event->pmu->itrace_filter_setup(event, PERF_EF_RELOAD);
and not otherwise?
Regards,
--
Alex
--
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