From: "Bayduraev, Alexey V" <alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Antonov <alexander.antonov@linux.intel.com>,
Alexei Budankov <abudankov@huawei.com>,
Riccardo Mancini <rickyman7@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] perf session: Move event read code to separate function
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:40:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d630cf0d-1bb5-0527-411a-c70a01e2ddea@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YWQ6TyyYRfx9AXLH@krava>
On 11.10.2021 16:21, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:53:30PM +0300, Bayduraev, Alexey V wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11.10.2021 12:08, Bayduraev, Alexey V wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08.10.2021 17:38, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 11:42:18AM +0300, Bayduraev, Alexey V wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.10.2021 10:33, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 01:25:41PM +0300, Alexey Bayduraev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SNIP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static int
>>>>>>> -reader__process_events(struct reader *rd, struct perf_session *session,
>>>>>>> - struct ui_progress *prog)
>>>>>>> +reader__read_event(struct reader *rd, struct perf_session *session,
>>>>>>> + struct ui_progress *prog)
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> active_decomp should be set/unset within reader__process_events,
>>>>>> not just for single event read, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it should be set before perf_session__process_event/process_decomp_events
>>>>> and unset after these calls. So active_decomp setting/unsetting is moved in
>>>>> this patch to the reader__read_event function. This is necessary for multiple
>>>>> trace reader because it could call reader__read_event in round-robin manner.
>>>>
>>>> hum, is that code already in? I can't see this happening in current code
>>>
>>> Probably I don't understand the question. In [PATCH v3 2/8] I introduced
>>> active_decomp pointer in perf_session. It is initialized by a pointer to the
>>> decompressor object in perf_session. In reader__process_events it is set to
>>> the reader decompressor object. And it is reset to the session decompressor
>>> object at exit. In this case we do not need to reset it after each
>>> perf_session__process_event because this code reads events in loop with
>>> constant reader object. Maybe setting of active_decomp should be at the
>>> entrance to the reader__process_events, not before reader__process_events,
>>> in [PATCH v3 2/8]. All this code is new.
>>
>> We set active_decomp for perf_session__process_event (rd->process() in our
>> case) and for __perf_session__process_decomp_events, active_decomp is not
>> necessary for other parts of reader__process_events.
>
> so what I see in the code is:
>
> __perf_session__process_events
> {
> struct reader rd;
>
> reader__process_events(rd)
> {
> reader__read_event(rd)
> {
> -> session->active_decomp = &rd->decomp_data;
> rd->process(...
> -> session->active_decomp = &session->decomp_data;
> }
>
> }
> }
>
>
> we set session->active_decomp for each event that we process
> and I don't understand why we can't do that just once in
> __perf_session__process_events, so it'd be like:
>
> __perf_session__process_events
> {
> struct reader rd;
>
> -> session->active_decomp = &rd->decomp_data;
>
> reader__process_events(rd)
> {
> reader__read_event(rd)
> {
> rd->process(...
> }
>
> }
>
> -> session->active_decomp = &session->decomp_data;
> }
>
>
> or within reader__process_events if it's more convenient
Now I got it, thanks ;)
With your suggestion, for multiple trace reader, we should always
remember to switch active_decomp when switching the reader object,
just passing the current reader pointer to the reader__read_event
function will not be enough. I thought it would be better to hide
such details in the reader__read_event function.
Of course, I can move setting of active_decomp outside of
reader__read_event if this is better from your point of view.
Regards,
Alexey
>
> jirka
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alexey
>>
>>>
>>> In this patch I separates single event reading and moves setting/resetting
>>> of active_decomp before/after perf_session__process_event because this is
>>> necessary for multiple trace reader.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alexey
>>>
>>>>
>>>> jirka
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alexey
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jirka
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 2.19.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-11 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-07 10:25 [PATCH v3 0/5] perf session: Extend reader object to allow multiple readers Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] perf session: Move all state items to reader object Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] perf session: Introduce decompressor in " Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] perf session: Move init/release code to separate functions Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] perf session: Move map code to separate function Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] perf session: Move unmap code to reader__mmap Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] perf session: Move event read code to separate function Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-08 7:33 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-10-08 8:42 ` Bayduraev, Alexey V
2021-10-08 14:38 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-10-11 9:08 ` Bayduraev, Alexey V
2021-10-11 9:53 ` Bayduraev, Alexey V
2021-10-11 13:21 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-10-11 16:40 ` Bayduraev, Alexey V [this message]
2021-10-11 19:56 ` Jiri Olsa
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] perf session: Introduce reader return codes Alexey Bayduraev
2021-10-07 10:25 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] perf session: Introduce reader EOF function Alexey Bayduraev
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=d630cf0d-1bb5-0527-411a-c70a01e2ddea@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com \
--cc=abudankov@huawei.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.antonov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rickyman7@gmail.com \
/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