* Joseph Schuchart <joseph.schuch...@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> @@ -549,15 +552,24 @@ static int flush_sample_queue(struct perf_session *s,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline void set_next_flush(struct perf_session *session)
> +{
> + int i;
> + u64 min_max_timestamp = session->ordered_samples.max_timestamps[0];
> + for (i = 1; i < MAX_NR_CPUS; i++) {
> + if (min_max_timestamp >
> session->ordered_samples.max_timestamps[i])
> + min_max_timestamp =
> session->ordered_samples.max_timestamps[i];
> + }
> + session->ordered_samples.next_flush = min_max_timestamp;
> +}
> static int process_finished_round(struct perf_tool *tool,
> union perf_event *event __maybe_unused,
> struct perf_session *session)
> {
> - int ret = flush_sample_queue(session, tool);
> - if (!ret)
> - session->ordered_samples.next_flush =
> session->ordered_samples.max_timestamp;
> -
> + int ret;
> + set_next_flush(session);
> + ret = flush_sample_queue(session, tool);
Just a quick side note, while I realize that you are
(rightfully!) concerned about correctness primarily, if that loop
over MAX_NR_CPUS executes often enough then this might hurt
performance:
perf.h:#define MAX_NR_CPUS 256
So it might be better to maintain a rolling min_max_timestamp in
this place:
+ os->max_timestamps[sample->cpu] = timestamp;
?
If done that way then AFAICS we could even eliminate the
->max_timestamps[NR_CPUS] array.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
