[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200904155251.GC939481@krava>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:52:51 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>, Al Grant <Al.Grant@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] perf mem: Introduce weak function
perf_mem_events__ptr()
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 08:34:47AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:50:54PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:38:03AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > @@ -2941,30 +2942,38 @@ static int perf_c2c__record(int argc, const char **argv)
> > > rec_argv[i++] = "record";
> > >
> > > if (!event_set) {
> > > - perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record = true;
> > > - perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE].record = true;
> > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> > > + e->record = true;
> > > +
> > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE);
> > > + e->record = true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record)
> > > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> > > + if (e->record)
> > > rec_argv[i++] = "-W";
> > >
> > > rec_argv[i++] = "-d";
> > > rec_argv[i++] = "--phys-data";
> > > rec_argv[i++] = "--sample-cpu";
> > >
> > > - for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> > > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].record)
> > > + j = 0;
> > > + while ((e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL) {
> > > + if (!e->record) {
> >
> > you could keep the above 'for loop' in here, it seems better
> > than taking care of j++
>
> Actually in patch v1 I did this way :) I followed James' suggestion to
> encapsulate PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX into perf_mem_events__ptr(), thus
> builtin-mem.c and buildin-c2c.c are not necessary to use
> PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX in the loop and only needs to detect if the
> pointer is NULL or not when return from perf_mem_events__ptr().
ah because u added that load_store event
>
> How about change as below?
>
> for (j = 0; (e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL; j++) {
> [...]
will this work? e will be NULL for first iteration no?
there are still other for loops with PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX used
in the patch.. you overload the perf_mem_events access for arm,
and add missing load_store NULL item to generic version, so there's
always PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX items in the array
can we just use the current for loop and check for e->tag != NULL
or any other field
thanks,
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists