[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a82hxsrw.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:18:59 +0300
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] perf/core: use rb trees for pinned/flexible groups
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>>> Iterating cpu specific subtree like this:
>>>
>>> #define for_each_group_event(event, group, cpu, pmu, field) \
>>> for (event = rb_entry_safe(group_first(group, cpu, pmu), \
>>> typeof(*event), field); \
>>> event && event->cpu == cpu && event->pmu == pmu; \
>>> event = rb_entry_safe(rb_next(&event->field), \
>>> typeof(*event), field))
>>
>> Afaict, this assumes that you are also ordering on event->pmu, which
>> should be reflected in your _less function. And also assuming that
>> group_first() is doing the right thing. Can we see the code?
>
> I didn't do ordering by PMU for this patch set. Yet more I implemented
> groups_first() like this:
Your iterator (quoted above) begs to differ.
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists