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:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:01:08 +0300
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.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 25.06.2020 15:17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 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)?

Like this? Still makes sense to have it in a single function.

static bool process_timing_settings(int timeout, unsigned int interval, int *times)
{
	bool res = timeout ? true : false;
        if (!res)
 		res = process_interval(interval, times);
 	return res;
}

~Alexey