From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] perf/core: Split up pinned and non pinned processing
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:32:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091110093207.GA5255@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091110051141.GD7897@elte.hu>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:11:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Split up pinned and non-pinned events processing in two helpers
> > so that it's more flexible to handle them seperately.
>
> > +static void
> > +__perf_event_sched_in_volatile(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> > + struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx, int cpu)
>
> Small naming suggestion: 'volatile' is a C keyword and rarely used
> outside of that context in the kernel, which makes this function name a
> bit confusing.
>
> So instead of pinned/volatile, a pinned/flexible naming would be more
> readable, i.e. __perf_event_sched_in_flexible() or so.
Right, also that makes it consistent with the hw-breakpoint constraints
naming.
> Also, most of the static functions in kernel/perf_event.c could lose
> their perf_event_ prefix - we already know it's a perf thing, right?
> That will shorten quite a few function names there.
>
> These functions would turn into __sched_in_pinned()/__sched_in_flexible().
>
> Agreed?
Totally.
I'll prepare a new iteration, thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-10 9:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-08 20:13 [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf/core: Small event scheduling changes Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-08 20:13 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] perf/core: split context's event group list into pinned and non-pinned lists Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-08 20:13 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] perf/core: Optimize a bit rotate_ctx() Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-08 20:13 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] perf/core: Split up pinned and non pinned processing Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-10 5:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-10 9:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2009-11-08 20:13 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] perf/core: Schedule every pinned events before the the non-pinned Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-10 10:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-10 10:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-10 5:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf/core: Small event scheduling changes Ingo Molnar
2009-11-10 9:41 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-10 9:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=20091110093207.GA5255@nowhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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