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]

Message-ID: <20200625121719.GI2719003@krava>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:17:19 +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 24, 2020 at 05:27:41PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
> On 23.06.2020 17:56, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Well, ok.
> 
> I will rename process_interval() to __process_interval() and
> then print_interval() to process_interval().
> 
> Regarding timeout let's have it like this:
> 
> static bool process_timeout(int timeout)
> {
> 	return timeout ? true : false;
> }

can't this just stay as value check after finished poll?

	if (timeout)
		break;

and then separate call to process_interval(interval, times)?

jirka

> 
> static bool process_timing_settings(int timeout, unsigned int interval, int *times)
> {
>         bool res = process_timeout(timeout);
>         if (!res)
> 		res = process_interval(interval, times);
> 	return res; 
> }
> 
> Ok?
> 
> ~Alexey
> 
> > 
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > 
>