[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871s8o62if.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:01:28 +0300
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
songliubraving@...com, eranian@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mark.rutland@....com, megha.dey@...el.com, frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf: Rewrite core context handling
Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> Since it reduces to single cpu context (and single task context) at all times,
> ideally, it would probably be coded as simple as this:
>
> perf_rotate_context()
> {
> cpu = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_context)
> for_every_pmu(pmu, cpu)
> for_every_event_ctx(event_ctx, pmu)
> rotate(event_ctx, pmu)
> }
>
> so rotate(event_ctx, pmu) would operate on common events objects semantics
> and memory layout, and PMU specific code handle SW/HW programming differences.
Ok, what's event_ctx and how does that simplify things?
Regards,
--
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists