[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cj9CgxmvSMLvDa=RM8zPRJpRbKqMkU7_B68HwEX7qo=hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:36:05 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] perf machine: Move machine's threads into its own abstraction
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:33 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Move thread_rb_node into the machine.c file. This hides the
> implementation of threads from the rest of the code allowing for it to
> be refactored.
>
> Locking discipline is tightened up in this change. As the lock is now
> encapsulated in threads, the findnew function requires holding it (as
> it already did in machine). Rather than do conditionals with locks
> based on whether the thread should be created (which could potentially
> be error prone with a read lock match with a write unlock), have a
> separate threads__find that won't create the thread and only holds the
> read lock. This effectively duplicates the findnew logic, with the
> existing findnew logic only operating under a write lock assuming
> creation is necessary as a previous find failed. The creation may
> still fail with the write lock due to another thread. The duplication
> is removed in a later next patch that delegates the implementation to
> hashtable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Thanks for doing this! A nit below..
> ---
[SNIP]
> @@ -3228,27 +3258,31 @@ int thread__resolve_callchain(struct thread *thread,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -int machine__for_each_thread(struct machine *machine,
> - int (*fn)(struct thread *thread, void *p),
> - void *priv)
> +int threads__for_each_thread(struct threads *threads,
> + int (*fn)(struct thread *thread, void *data),
> + void *data)
> {
> - struct threads *threads;
> - struct rb_node *nd;
> - int rc = 0;
> - int i;
> + for (int i = 0; i < THREADS__TABLE_SIZE; i++) {
> + struct threads_table_entry *table = &threads->table[i];
> + struct rb_node *nd;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < THREADS__TABLE_SIZE; i++) {
> - threads = &machine->threads[i];
> - for (nd = rb_first_cached(&threads->entries); nd;
> - nd = rb_next(nd)) {
> + for (nd = rb_first_cached(&table->entries); nd; nd = rb_next(nd)) {
> struct thread_rb_node *trb = rb_entry(nd, struct thread_rb_node, rb_node);
> + int rc = fn(trb->thread, data);
>
> - rc = fn(trb->thread, priv);
> if (rc != 0)
> return rc;
> }
> }
> - return rc;
> + return 0;
Don't we need locking in this function?
Thanks,
Namhyung
> +
> +}
> +
> +int machine__for_each_thread(struct machine *machine,
> + int (*fn)(struct thread *thread, void *p),
> + void *priv)
> +{
> + return threads__for_each_thread(&machine->threads, fn, priv);
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists