[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613073914.GQ4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 09:39:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
nicolas@...sle.eu, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
vkoul@...nel.org, trix@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, acme@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, apw@...onical.com, joe@...ches.com,
dwaipayanray1@...il.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
john.johansen@...onical.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, ravi.bangoria@....com, error27@...il.com,
luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/57] perf: Simplify event_function*()
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:56:06PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 2:39 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Use guards to reduce gotos and simplify control flow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/events/core.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -214,6 +214,25 @@ struct event_function_struct {
> > void *data;
> > };
> >
> > +typedef struct {
> > + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx;
> > + struct perf_event_context *ctx;
> > +} class_perf_ctx_lock_t;
> > +
> > +static inline void class_perf_ctx_lock_destructor(class_perf_ctx_lock_t *_T)
> > +{
> > + if (_T->cpuctx)
> > + perf_ctx_unlock(_T->cpuctx, _T->ctx);
>
> Shouldn't it be called unconditionally?
In all surviving cases it will be, so yeah, I can remove that condition.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists