From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B7DC433DF for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:49:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A982070A for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ZzVXBxj9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729172AbgEULtK (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 07:49:10 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:42853 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729002AbgEULtJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 07:49:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590061747; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rD9nUKjKetPNgFJJMbeB1cCRB1Q4uLpwzABIKxJBRI4=; b=ZzVXBxj95GDlsNsKaCoFaUGjoi4brsXfFHsZ/DiqcQ1wppNKlIAZn4fqCY7bM2NwH3D0NG VsYVh+YWKenzjb29U75oWCoDKbNvYih9he0tBVaGmpIAGiGk2KfB797FWzX7d+qwT/38cV k0ZG/q8BuZpG6bv/j6C33NqdB3lHo2c= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-466-32XGUhsBM8yfJVKvXScDxA-1; Thu, 21 May 2020 07:49:03 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 32XGUhsBM8yfJVKvXScDxA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8669C80183C; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from krava (unknown [10.40.195.217]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BCCE75C1B0; Thu, 21 May 2020 11:49:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 13:48:59 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Alexey Budankov Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim , Alexander Shishkin , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] perf stat: factor out event handling loop into a function Message-ID: <20200521114859.GU157452@krava> References: <20200520123850.GI157452@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 06:17:40PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: SNIP > >> @@ -675,16 +708,9 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx) > >> perf_evlist__start_workload(evsel_list); > >> enable_counters(); > >> > >> - if (interval || timeout) { > >> - while (!waitpid(child_pid, &status, WNOHANG)) { > >> - nanosleep(&ts, NULL); > >> - if (timeout) > >> - break; > >> - process_interval(); > >> - if (interval_count && !(--times)) > >> - break; > >> - } > >> - } > >> + if (interval || timeout) > >> + handle_events(child_pid, &stat_config); > >> + > >> if (child_pid != -1) { > >> if (timeout) > >> kill(child_pid, SIGTERM); > >> @@ -701,18 +727,7 @@ static int __run_perf_stat(int argc, const char **argv, int run_idx) > >> psignal(WTERMSIG(status), argv[0]); > >> } else { > >> enable_counters(); > >> - while (!done) { > >> - nanosleep(&ts, NULL); > >> - if (!is_target_alive(&target, evsel_list->core.threads)) > >> - break; > >> - if (timeout) > >> - break; > >> - if (interval) { > >> - process_interval(); > >> - if (interval_count && !(--times)) > >> - break; > >> - } > >> - } > >> + handle_events(-1, &stat_config); > > > > this makes me worried.. I'm not sure if it's good idea > > to squash these 2 looops into one, because they are already > > complex as they are.. and one of you following patches is > > making it even more complex > > Loops bodies are mostly identical. The only difference is in events > they wait for and API used for that. Adding of more events will > complicate further. The code is duplicated, thus needs refactoring. > If the following patch complicates lets organize the patch it into > several smaller functions. yea, that might help jirka > > > > > wouldn't it be better if you just add single call into > > each of them.. that would poll on your fd and process the > > commands if needed? > > That's of course possible, but doesn't manage existing complexity > at the first place - __run_perf_stat(). > > Let's still have handle_events() as a general dispatcher and implement > handlers for different events as separate functions? > > ~Alexey >