From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/perf/core] perf, x86: P4 PMU - Introduce event alias feature
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:07:55 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110721080755.GO7492@sun> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110721075201.GH9216@elte.hu>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:52:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > +static u64 p4_get_alias_event(u64 config)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u64 config_match;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Probably we're lucky and don't have to do
> > > > + * matching over all config bits.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!(config & P4_CONFIG_ALIASABLE))
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > 'all' config bits? There's a single alias mapping in
> > > p4_event_aliases[] right now which makes the comment rather
> > > misleading ...
> >
> > no, the cycle below does check for all bits in config, and test
> > for single bit might help us to return early.
>
> The loop below? AFAICS it does:
>
> > > > + */
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(p4_event_aliases); i++) {
> > > > + if (config_match == p4_event_aliases[i].orig) {
> > > > + config_match = p4_event_aliases[i].alter;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + } else if (config_match == p4_event_aliases[i].alter) {
> > > > + config_match = p4_event_aliases[i].orig;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
>
> and p4_event_aliases[] is a single-entry array, so ARRAY_SIZE() is 1
> and this loop iterates once.
I know, but Ingo, I can't guarantee that we'll never bring some new
alias(es) later ;) And test over 64bit variable is not the same as a test
over a single bit (where gcc knows the only one bit is tested and can
optimize it). I think I simply drop this comment, early return case is
understandable without it at all.
>
> > > Since this .c file is P4 specific and p4_event_aliases[] is a
> > > file-scope array, is the p4_ prefix even needed?
> >
> > I prefer them to be distinguished this way, since the .c file in
> > real is included into another (perf_event.c) file.
>
> That should probably be fixed btw. - but yeah, until the PMU drivers
> are separated out better the prefix is fine.
I thought about adding some additional Kconfig where we would choose which
PMU to compile in, not sure though where is the best place for it (under
which menu section I mean).
>
> > > > +
> > > > + if (i >= ARRAY_SIZE(p4_event_aliases))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + return (config_match |
> > > > + (config & P4_CONFIG_EVENT_ALIAS_IMMUTABLE_BITS));
> > >
> > > 'return' is not a function. Also, please don't break the line
> > > pointlessly.
> >
> > It is perfectly fine to return args in braces,
> > but I will change it.
>
> The parantheses are syntactically valid but not 'perfectly fine'. As
> per kernel coding style we don't use them, to signal that 'return' is
> not a function.
ok, i'll fix
>
> >
> > ...
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Probably an event alias is still available.
> > >
> > > s/Probably/Possibly?
> >
> > Hm? I don't get what is wrong with 'probably'.
>
> Probably means "most likely, maybe" - and that's not the case here.
>
> (It's misleading in this context because it declares the probability
> of this action as always higher than 50% - and that's not always the
> case here.)
>
> 'Possibly' leaves the probability more undefined.
>
> You could also write 'Check whether an event alias is still
> available'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
ok
Cyrill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-21 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-08 20:17 [PATCH -tip/perf/core] perf, x86: P4 PMU - Introduce event alias feature Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-07-14 18:46 ` Don Zickus
2011-07-21 6:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-21 7:20 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2011-07-21 7:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-21 8:07 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2011-07-21 8:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-21 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-21 10:00 ` [tip:perf/core] " tip-bot for Cyrill Gorcunov
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=20110721080755.GO7492@sun \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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