[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200527102533.GG350217@krava>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 12:25:33 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf ordered_events: Optimise event object reuse
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:59:28PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
SNIP
> +
> +/*
> + * Allocate a new event object from the free event cache.
> + *
> + * Find the first address range in the cache and carve out enough bytes
> + * for an ordered_event objects. The object with the lowest address is
> + * always returned so that subsequent allocations benefit from
> + * contiguous memory accesses (spatial locality).
> + */
> +static struct ordered_event *free_event_get_tree(struct ordered_events *oe)
> +{
> + struct interval_tree_node *it;
> + struct ordered_event *new;
> + size_t bytes = sizeof(*new);
> +
> + it = interval_tree_iter_first(&oe->cache.rb, 0, ULONG_MAX);
> + if (!it)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + /* Has the cache memory been exhausted? */
> + assert(cache_region_size(it) >= bytes);
> +
> + new = (void *)it->start;
> +
> + if (cache_region_size(it) == bytes) {
> + interval_tree_remove(it, &oe->cache.rb);
> + free(it);
> + }
> +
> + it->start += bytes;
this does not look right.. should this go to else path in above condition?
jirka
> + return new;
> +}
> +
SNIP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists