From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752402AbdCCXQQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 18:16:16 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([193.170.194.197]:50086 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752375AbdCCXQO (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 18:16:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:16:11 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Andi Kleen , acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf, tools, stat: Factor out callback for collecting event values Message-ID: <20170303231610.GK26852@two.firstfloor.org> References: <20170301064924.32172-1-andi@firstfloor.org> <20170301064924.32172-2-andi@firstfloor.org> <20170303103303.GA8905@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170303103303.GA8905@krava> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:33:03AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:49:15PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > SNIP > > > +static void collect_data(struct perf_evsel *counter, > > + void (*cb)(struct perf_evsel *counter, void *data, > > + bool first), > > + void *data) > > +{ > > + cb(counter, data, true); > > +} > > + > > +struct aggr_data { > > + u64 ena, run, val; > > + int id; > > + int nr; > > + int cpu; > > +}; > > + > > +static void aggr_cb(struct perf_evsel *counter, void *data, bool first) > > +{ > > + struct aggr_data *ad = data; > > + int cpu, cpu2, s2; > > + > > + for (cpu = 0; cpu < perf_evsel__nr_cpus(counter); cpu++) { > > + struct perf_counts_values *counts; > > + > > + cpu2 = perf_evsel__cpus(counter)->map[cpu]; > > + s2 = aggr_get_id(evsel_list->cpus, cpu2); > > that does not match the removed code.. why? > s2 = aggr_get_id(perf_evsel__cpus(counter), cpu); I added it at some point during debugging. I think it's actually a nop here, but technically it's correct (we're always supposed to remap) I can remove it, but it's really a small code cleanup. -Andi