From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] perf lock contention: Simplify spinlock check
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 23:51:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240830065150.1758962-2-namhyung@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240830065150.1758962-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
The LCB_F_SPIN bit is used for spinlock, rwlock and optimistic spinning
in mutex. In get_tstamp_elem() it needs to check spinlock and rwlock
only. As mutex sets the LCB_F_MUTEX, it can check those two bits and
reduce the number of operations.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
---
tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/lock_contention.bpf.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/lock_contention.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/lock_contention.bpf.c
index e8a6f6463019..4b7237e178bd 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/lock_contention.bpf.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/lock_contention.bpf.c
@@ -323,8 +323,7 @@ static inline struct tstamp_data *get_tstamp_elem(__u32 flags)
struct tstamp_data *pelem;
/* Use per-cpu array map for spinlock and rwlock */
- if (flags == (LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_READ) || flags == LCB_F_SPIN ||
- flags == (LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_WRITE)) {
+ if ((flags & (LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_MUTEX)) == LCB_F_SPIN) {
__u32 idx = 0;
pelem = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&tstamp_cpu, &idx);
--
2.46.0.469.g59c65b2a67-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-30 6:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-30 6:51 [PATCH 1/3] perf lock contention: Handle error in a single place Namhyung Kim
2024-08-30 6:51 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2024-08-30 6:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] perf lock contention: Do not fail EEXIST for update Namhyung Kim
2024-08-30 13:17 ` [PATCH 1/3] perf lock contention: Handle error in a single place Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240830065150.1758962-2-namhyung@kernel.org \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).