From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752262AbdGMPPT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:15:19 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:59895 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201AbdGMPPS (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:15:18 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,354,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="107796897" Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/7] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type From: "Jin, Yao" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com References: <1499947459-4527-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1499947459-4527-3-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20170713143150.ceby42dokdeagxas@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:15:14 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/13/2017 11:06 PM, Jin, Yao wrote: > > Sorry, please ignore my previous response. > > > On 7/13/2017 10:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 08:04:14PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote: >>> +#define X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX 16 >>> + >>> +static int >>> +common_branch_type(int type) >>> +{ >>> + int i, mask; >>> + const int branch_map[X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX] = { >>> + PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_CALL */ >>> + PERF_BR_RET, /* X86_BR_RET */ >>> + PERF_BR_SYSCALL, /* X86_BR_SYSCALL */ >>> + PERF_BR_SYSRET, /* X86_BR_SYSRET */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_INT */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IRET */ >>> + PERF_BR_COND, /* X86_BR_JCC */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNCOND, /* X86_BR_JMP */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IRQ */ >>> + PERF_BR_IND_CALL, /* X86_BR_IND_CALL */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_ABORT */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_IN_TX */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_NO_TX */ >>> + PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_ZERO_CALL */ >>> + PERF_BR_UNKNOWN, /* X86_BR_CALL_STACK */ >>> + PERF_BR_IND, /* X86_BR_IND_JMP */ >>> + }; >>> + >>> + type >>= 2; /* skip X86_BR_USER and X86_BR_KERNEL */ >> >>> + mask = ~(~0 << 1); >> OCC worthy means of writing: 1 >> >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX; i++) { >>> + if (type & mask) >>> + return branch_map[i]; >>> + >>> + type >>= 1; >>> + } >> That is some of the more confused code I've seen in a while :/ >> >> if (type) >> return branch_map[__ffs(type)]; >> >> is what you meant to write, no? > > Now I understand what you suggest. Yes, that's right. > > Do I need to update the patch? > > Thanks > Jin Yao > Looks it should be: if (type) return branch_map[__ffs(type) - 1]; >>> + >>> + return PERF_BR_UNKNOWN; >>> +} >