linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] perf/tools: Refactoring metricgroup__add

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a61dbe87-1563-a56e-74f4-59dc4ba88248@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:47:08 +0530
From:   kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, yao.jin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, jmario@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        paulus@...abs.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mpetlan@...hat.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        mamatha4@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] perf/tools: Refactoring metricgroup__add_metric
 function



On 3/17/20 8:40 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:53:30AM +0530, Kajol Jain wrote:
>> This patch refactor metricgroup__add_metric function where
>> some part of it move to function metricgroup__add_metric_param.
>> No logic change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
>> index c3a8c701609a..b4919bcfbd8b 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
>> @@ -474,6 +474,41 @@ static bool metricgroup__has_constraint(struct pmu_event *pe)
>>  	return false;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int metricgroup__add_metric_param(struct strbuf *events,
>> +			struct list_head *group_list, struct pmu_event *pe)
>> +{
>> +
>> +	const char **ids;
>> +	int idnum;
>> +	struct egroup *eg;
>> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	if (expr__find_other(pe->metric_expr, NULL, &ids, &idnum, 1) < 0)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	if (events->len > 0)
>> +		strbuf_addf(events, ",");
>> +
>> +	if (metricgroup__has_constraint(pe))
>> +		metricgroup__add_metric_non_group(events, ids, idnum);
>> +	else
>> +		metricgroup__add_metric_weak_group(events, ids, idnum);
>> +
>> +	eg = malloc(sizeof(*eg));
>> +	if (!eg)
>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> 
> ??? you need to return in here, eg is NULL

Yes right, miss this part. Will correct it.

> 
>> +
>> +	eg->ids = ids;
>> +	eg->idnum = idnum;
>> +	eg->metric_name = pe->metric_name;
>> +	eg->metric_expr = pe->metric_expr;
>> +	eg->metric_unit = pe->unit;
>> +	list_add_tail(&eg->nd, group_list);
>> +	ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *metric, struct strbuf *events,
>>  				   struct list_head *group_list)
>>  {
>> @@ -493,35 +528,13 @@ static int metricgroup__add_metric(const char *metric, struct strbuf *events,
>>  			continue;
>>  		if (match_metric(pe->metric_group, metric) ||
>>  		    match_metric(pe->metric_name, metric)) {
>> -			const char **ids;
>> -			int idnum;
>> -			struct egroup *eg;
>>  
>>  			pr_debug("metric expr %s for %s\n", pe->metric_expr, pe->metric_name);
>>  
>> -			if (expr__find_other(pe->metric_expr,
>> -					     NULL, &ids, &idnum) < 0)
>> +			ret = metricgroup__add_metric_param(events,
>> +							group_list, pe);
>> +			if (ret == -EINVAL)
>>  				continue;
> 
> previous code did 'continue' on ret < 0, why just -EINVAL now?

Actually incase we have memory issue then we are not 
continuing that's why I added check for -EINVAL explicitly. Because for other cases
I am returning -EINVAL itself. But Yes I miss one part, where
even after matched metric we are continuing incase ret = 0. Will update that part.
Please let me know if it sounds fine.

Thanks,
Kajol
> 
> jirka
>