lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: How about limiting refresh ioctl to sampling events ?
From
Date
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:19 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:01 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> >> Hello Peter,
> >>
> >> I'm looking at the perf event stuff and wondering if
> >
> >> perf_event_refresh() should be limited to sampling events.
> >>
> >> Does the following make sense ?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> index 3b105e0..1a90a6c 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> @@ -1072,7 +1072,7 @@ static int perf_event_refresh(struct perf_event *event, int refresh)
> >> /*
> >> * not supported on inherited events
> >> */
> >> - if (event->attr.inherit)
> >> + if (event->attr.inherit || !event->attr.sample_period)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> atomic_add(refresh, &event->event_limit);
> >
> > Yes it does, please submit as a proper patch.
>
> Ok.
>
> I'm also wondering if you would accept a second patch which will
> introduce:
>
> static inline bool is_sampling_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> return event->attr.sample_period != 0;
> }
>
> That would make the code slighlty easier to read IMHO.
>

Sure, Francis might want that too, he found another something like this.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-23 14:49    [W:0.038 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site