On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 12:25:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 12:00:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes, you're right. Let me try and see if I can make that better.
>
> Something like so?
yep, seems good ;-)
jirka
>
> ---
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
> @@ -831,6 +831,18 @@ static inline void pebs_update_threshold
> ds->pebs_interrupt_threshold = threshold;
> }
>
> +static void pebs_update_state(bool needs_cb, struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
> struct pmu *pmu)
> +{
> + if (needs_cb != pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc)) {
> + if (!needs_cb)
> + perf_sched_cb_inc(pmu);
> + else
> + perf_sched_cb_dec(pmu);
> +
> + pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void intel_pmu_pebs_add(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> @@ -841,10 +853,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_pebs_add(struct pe
> if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_FREERUNNING)
> cpuc->n_large_pebs++;
>
> - if (!needs_cb && pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc))
> - perf_sched_cb_inc(event->ctx->pmu);
> -
> - pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
> + pebs_update_state(needs_cb, cpuc, event->ctx->pmu);
> }
>
> void intel_pmu_pebs_enable(struct perf_event *event)
> @@ -884,11 +893,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_pebs_del(struct pe
> if (hwc->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_FREERUNNING)
> cpuc->n_large_pebs--;
>
> - if (needs_cb && !pebs_needs_sched_cb(cpuc))
> - perf_sched_cb_dec(event->ctx->pmu);
> -
> - if (cpuc->n_pebs)
> - pebs_update_threshold(cpuc);
> + pebs_update_state(needs_cb, cpuc, event->ctx->pmu);
> }
>
> void intel_pmu_pebs_disable(struct perf_event *event)
