Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:48:48 -0500 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf_event: cleanup for event profile buffer operation |
| |
Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:21:46AM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> Hmm, could you make it inline-functions or add __kprobes? >> Because it is called from kprobes, we don't want to probe >> the function which will be called from kprobes handlers itself. >> >> (IMHO, from the viewpoint of performance, inline-function >> could be better.) >> >> Thank you, > > > > Yeah, may be inline ftrace_profile_buf_end, would be better. > But we shouldn't inline ftrace_profile_buf_begin() I guess, > considering its size.
Indeed, especially for events...
> While at it, may be let's choose more verbose names > like > > ftrace_profile_buf_fill() and ftrace_profile_buf_submit(). > > Also, profile is a bit of a misnomer. Not a problem since > ftrace_profile_templ_##call() is already a misnomer, but > we should start a bit of a rename. Sometimes, perf only > profiles trace events as counters and sometimes it records > the raw samples too. > > So, as more generic names, I would suggest: > > ftrace_perf_buf_fill() and ftrace_perf_buf_submit().
Actual filling buffer is done in the profile handlers, so I think ftrace_perf_buf_prepare() may be better :-) ftrace_perf_buf_submit is good to me:-)
Thank you,
-- Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com
| |