lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:18:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:51:17AM -0400, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 19:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > I can't really say I like this move stuff into perf_event.h and then
> > move it out again dance. Makes it exceedingly hard for me to tell wth
> > actually happened.
> >
> > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 132 --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Compared with:
> >
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 126 +++++++++++-
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 7 +-
> >
> > Its very hard to tell if this undoes the exact damage you did earlier.
>
> The right thing to do would be to redo the patches again with internal.h
> in mind.
>
> > > kernel/events/callchain.c | 3 +
> > > kernel/events/cgroup.c | 2 +
> > > kernel/events/core.c | 2 +
> > > kernel/events/internal.h | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 kernel/events/internal.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > index 7978850..6b25452 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> > > @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ enum event_type_t {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> > > extern struct list_head pmus;
> > > extern int perf_pmu_register(struct pmu *pmu, char *name, int type);
> > > -extern void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu);
> >
> > That just doesn't make any sense. If we publish one side of the API we
> > should also publish the other side.
>
> Fair enough. It was unused, therefore I removed it.
>
> > > extern int perf_num_counters(void);
> > > extern const char *perf_pmu_name(void);
> > > @@ -985,8 +984,6 @@ perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
> > > int cpu,
> > > struct task_struct *task,
> > > perf_overflow_handler_t callback);
> > > -extern u64 perf_event_read_value(struct perf_event *event,
> > > - u64 *enabled, u64 *running);
> >
> > While not used, that is a valid part of the API.
>
> Yep, ditto.
>
> > >
> > > struct perf_sample_data {
> > > u64 type;
> > > @@ -1152,60 +1149,10 @@ extern int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > > struct perf_event *event, unsigned int size,
> > > int nmi, int sample);
> > > extern void perf_output_end(struct perf_output_handle *handle);
> > > -extern void perf_output_copy(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > > - const void *buf, unsigned int len);
> >
> > idem
> >
> > > extern int perf_swevent_get_recursion_context(void);
> > > -extern void perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(int rctx);
> >
> > Again, creating asymmetry.
>
> Ok, I won't be able to redo the patches before Mo. due to travel. Also,
> I think that you should do the splitting, as I suggested so at the
> beginning!

I can take it if you want. I'm currently splitting the buffer
part so I can try to relay the rest as well :)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-12 16:35    [W:1.743 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site