On 29.05.2017 13:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:15:14PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
On 29.05.2017 10:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 02:19:51PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
@@ -742,7 +772,17 @@ struct perf_event_context {
struct list_head active_ctx_list;
struct list_head pinned_groups;
+ /*
+ * Cpu tree for pinned groups; keeps event's group_node nodes
+ * of attached flexible groups;
+ */
+ struct rb_root pinned_tree;
struct list_head flexible_groups;
+ /*
+ * Cpu tree for flexible groups; keeps event's group_node nodes
+ * of attached flexible groups;
+ */
+ struct rb_root flexible_tree;
struct list_head event_list;
int nr_events;
int nr_active;
@@ -758,6 +798,7 @@ struct perf_event_context {
*/
u64 time;
u64 timestamp;
+ struct perf_event_tstamp tstamp_data;
/*
* These fields let us detect when two contexts have both
So why do we now have a list _and_ a tree for the same entries?
We need groups list to iterate through all groups configured for collection
and we need the tree to quickly iterate through the groups allocated for a
particular CPU only.
*confused*, what?
Why can't the tree do both?
Well, indeed, the tree provides such capability too. However switching
to the full tree iteration in cases where we now go through _groups
lists will enlarge the patch, what is probably is not a big deal. Do you
think it is worth implementing the switch?
Thanks,
Alexey
