Re: [PATCH v4 13/17] perf pmu-events: Don't assume pmu_event is an array
From: John Garry <hidden>
Date: 2022-08-05 12:56:16
Also in:
linux-perf-users, lkml
On 04/08/2022 23:18, Ian Rogers wrote:
Current code assumes that a struct pmu_event can be iterated over forward until a NULL pmu_event is encountered. This makes it difficult to refactor pmu_event. Add a loop function taking a callback function that's passed the struct pmu_event. This way the pmu_event is only needed for one element and not an entire array. Switch existing code iterating over the pmu_event arrays to use the new loop function pmu_events_table_for_each_event.
I find it hard to follow the change from the description. The title is "Don't assume pmu_event is an array", but that is rightly what pmu_events_table_for_each_event() does. If I check - for exmaple - pmu_add_cpu_aliases_map(), you just switch it over to using pmu_events_table_for_each_event(), which seems resonable. So it just seems here that we're refactoring the code, and not changing the nature of how we handle pmu_events *.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> --- tools/perf/pmu-events/empty-pmu-events.c | 34 +++-- tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.py | 34 +++-- tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events.h | 3 + tools/perf/tests/pmu-events.c | 136 +++++++++-------- tools/perf/util/metricgroup.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++------- tools/perf/util/pmu.c | 65 ++++---- tools/perf/util/s390-sample-raw.c | 42 ++++-- 7 files changed, 313 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/empty-pmu-events.c b/tools/perf/pmu-events/empty-pmu-events.c index 028f44efe48d..bee1967baa2b 100644 --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/empty-pmu-events.c +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/empty-pmu-events.c@@ -247,6 +247,20 @@ static const struct pmu_sys_events pmu_sys_event_tables[] = { }, }; +int pmu_events_table_for_each_event(const struct pmu_event *table, pmu_event_iter_fn fn, + void *data) +{ + for (const struct pmu_event *pe = &table[0]; + pe->name || pe->metric_group || pe->metric_name; + pe++) { + int ret = fn(pe, table, data); + + if (ret) + return ret; + } + return 0; +} + const struct pmu_event *perf_pmu__find_table(struct perf_pmu *pmu) { const struct pmu_event *table = NULL;@@ -291,14 +305,10 @@ int pmu_for_each_core_event(pmu_event_iter_fn fn, void *data) for (const struct pmu_events_map *tables = &pmu_events_map[0]; tables->table; tables++) { - for (const struct pmu_event *pe = &tables->table[0]; - pe->name || pe->metric_group || pe->metric_name; - pe++) { - int ret = fn(pe, &tables->table[0], data); + int ret = pmu_events_table_for_each_event(tables->table, fn, data); - if (ret) - return ret; - } + if (ret) + return ret; } return 0; }@@ -319,14 +329,10 @@ int pmu_for_each_sys_event(pmu_event_iter_fn fn, void *data) for (const struct pmu_sys_events *tables = &pmu_sys_event_tables[0]; tables->name; tables++) { - for (const struct pmu_event *pe = &tables->table[0]; - pe->name || pe->metric_group || pe->metric_name; - pe++) { - int ret = fn(pe, &tables->table[0], data); + int ret = pmu_events_table_for_each_event(tables->table, fn, data); - if (ret) - return ret; - } + if (ret) + return ret; } return 0; }diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.py b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.py index e976c5e8e80b..365c960202b0 100755 --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.py +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.py@@ -409,6 +409,20 @@ static const struct pmu_sys_events pmu_sys_event_tables[] = { \t}, }; +int pmu_events_table_for_each_event(const struct pmu_event *table, pmu_event_iter_fn fn, + void *data)
Again we seem to be just duplicating what is in empty-pmu-events.c - can we avoid this? another idea (apart from linking in other c files) is for empty-pmu-events.c to be generated from jevents.py (like how it was done for jevents.c) _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel