From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] perf machine: Move machine's threads into its own abstraction
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:36:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cj9CgxmvSMLvDa=RM8zPRJpRbKqMkU7_B68HwEX7qo=hg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240229063253.561838-5-irogers@google.com>
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:33 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.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@google.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);
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-01 1:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-29 6:32 [PATCH v3 0/7] Thread memory improvements and fixes Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] perf report: Sort child tasks by tid Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] perf trace: Ignore thread hashing in summary Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] perf machine: Move fprintf to for_each loop and a callback Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] perf machine: Move machine's threads into its own abstraction Ian Rogers
2024-03-01 1:36 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2024-03-01 5:02 ` Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] perf threads: Move threads to its own files Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] perf threads: Switch from rbtree to hashmap Ian Rogers
2024-02-29 6:32 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] perf threads: Reduce table size from 256 to 8 Ian Rogers
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='CAM9d7cj9CgxmvSMLvDa=RM8zPRJpRbKqMkU7_B68HwEX7qo=hg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=yangjihong1@huawei.com \
/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).