[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cgDK6n1=k+45PmdjtFf48oPRYx+rjMKWx0aiVWjyD3trg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 14:19:37 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>, guohanjun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf metric: Code cleanup with map_for_each_event()
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Since we have introduced map_for_each_event() to walk the 'pmu_events_map',
> clean up metricgroup__print() and metricgroup__has_metric() with it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>
Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
A nit-pick below:
> ---
> tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 33 +++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> index 8831b964288f..3734cbb2c456 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,17 @@
> #include "util.h"
> #include <asm/bug.h>
>
> +#define map_for_each_event(__pe, __idx, __map) \
> + for (__idx = 0, __pe = &__map->table[__idx]; \
> + __pe->name || __pe->metric_group || __pe->metric_name; \
> + __pe = &__map->table[++__idx])
> +
> +#define map_for_each_metric(__pe, __idx, __map, __metric) \
> + map_for_each_event(__pe, __idx, __map) \
> + if (__pe->metric_expr && \
> + (match_metric(__pe->metric_group, __metric) || \
> + match_metric(__pe->metric_name, __metric)))
> +
You may consider adding a declaration of match_metric() here.
Right now, all users are below the function so it's ok but
having the macro here can enable future addition above IMHO.
Thanks
Namhyung
> struct metric_event *metricgroup__lookup(struct rblist *metric_events,
> struct evsel *evsel,
> bool create)
> @@ -475,12 +486,9 @@ void metricgroup__print(bool metrics, bool metricgroups, char *filter,
> groups.node_new = mep_new;
> groups.node_cmp = mep_cmp;
> groups.node_delete = mep_delete;
> - for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> + map_for_each_event(pe, i, map) {
> const char *g;
> - pe = &map->table[i];
>
> - if (!pe->name && !pe->metric_group && !pe->metric_name)
> - break;
> if (!pe->metric_expr)
> continue;
> g = pe->metric_group;
> @@ -745,17 +753,6 @@ static int __add_metric(struct list_head *metric_list,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -#define map_for_each_event(__pe, __idx, __map) \
> - for (__idx = 0, __pe = &__map->table[__idx]; \
> - __pe->name || __pe->metric_group || __pe->metric_name; \
> - __pe = &__map->table[++__idx])
> -
> -#define map_for_each_metric(__pe, __idx, __map, __metric) \
> - map_for_each_event(__pe, __idx, __map) \
> - if (__pe->metric_expr && \
> - (match_metric(__pe->metric_group, __metric) || \
> - match_metric(__pe->metric_name, __metric)))
> -
> static struct pmu_event *find_metric(const char *metric, struct pmu_events_map *map)
> {
> struct pmu_event *pe;
> @@ -1092,11 +1089,7 @@ bool metricgroup__has_metric(const char *metric)
> if (!map)
> return false;
>
> - for (i = 0; ; i++) {
> - pe = &map->table[i];
> -
> - if (!pe->name && !pe->metric_group && !pe->metric_name)
> - break;
> + map_for_each_event(pe, i, map) {
> if (!pe->metric_expr)
> continue;
> if (match_metric(pe->metric_name, metric))
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists