linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] perf stat: factor out body of event handling loop for system wide

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:56:30 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] perf stat: factor out body of event handling
 loop for system wide

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:37:43AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
> Introduce process_timeout() and process_interval() functions that
> factor out body of event handling loop for attach and system wide
> monitoring use cases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/builtin-stat.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> index 9be020e0098a..31f7ccf9537b 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-stat.c
> @@ -475,6 +475,23 @@ static void process_interval(void)
>  	print_counters(&rs, 0, NULL);
>  }
>  
> +static bool print_interval(unsigned int interval, int *times)
> +{
> +	if (interval) {
> +		process_interval();
> +		if (interval_count && !(--(*times)))
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool process_timeout(int timeout, unsigned int interval, int *times)
> +{
> +	if (timeout)
> +		return true;
> +	return print_interval(interval, times);
> +}

I think it's confusing to keep this together, that
process_timeout triggers also interval processing

I think you can keep the timeout separated from interval
processing and rename the print_interval to process_interval
and process_interval to __process_interval

jirka

> +
>  static void enable_counters(void)
>  {
>  	if (stat_config.initial_delay)
> @@ -611,6 +628,7 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx)
>  	struct affinity affinity;
>  	int i, cpu;
>  	bool second_pass = false;
> +	bool stop = false;
>  
>  	if (interval) {
>  		ts.tv_sec  = interval / USEC_PER_MSEC;
> @@ -805,17 +823,11 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx)
>  			psignal(WTERMSIG(status), argv[0]);
>  	} else {
>  		enable_counters();
> -		while (!done) {
> +		while (!done && !stop) {
>  			nanosleep(&ts, NULL);
>  			if (!is_target_alive(&target, evsel_list->core.threads))
>  				break;
> -			if (timeout)
> -				break;
> -			if (interval) {
> -				process_interval();
> -				if (interval_count && !(--times))
> -					break;
> -			}
> +			stop = process_timeout(timeout, interval, &times);
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -- 
> 2.24.1
> 
>