2014-06-13 (금), 00:08 +0200, Jiri Olsa:
> +#define MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER (64 * 1024 / sizeof(struct ordered_event))
> +static struct ordered_event *alloc_event(struct ordered_events_queue *q)
> +{
> + struct list_head *cache = &q->cache;
> + struct ordered_event *new;
> +
> + if (!list_empty(cache)) {
> + new = list_entry(cache->next, struct ordered_event, list);
> + list_del(&new->list);
> + } else if (q->buffer) {
> + new = q->buffer + q->buffer_idx;
> + if (++q->buffer_idx == MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER)
> + q->buffer = NULL;
> + } else {
> + q->buffer = malloc(MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER * sizeof(*new));
> + if (!q->buffer)
> + return NULL;
> + list_add(&q->buffer->list, &q->to_free);
> + q->buffer_idx = 2;
> + new = q->buffer + 1;
Hmm.. can we add a comment that the first entry is abused to maintain
the to_free list?
> + }
> +
> + return new;
> +}
> +
> +static struct ordered_event*
> +ordered_events_get(struct ordered_events_queue *q, u64 timestamp)
> +{
> + struct ordered_event *new;
> +
> + new = alloc_event(q);
> + if (new) {
> + new->timestamp = timestamp;
> + queue_event(q, new);
> + }
> +
> + return new;
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +ordered_event_put(struct ordered_events_queue *q, struct ordered_event *iter)
> +{
> + list_del(&iter->list);
> + list_add(&iter->list, &q->cache);
list_move(&iter->list, &q->cache) ?
> + q->nr_events--;
> +}
[SNIP]
> @@ -639,29 +681,13 @@ int perf_session_queue_event(struct perf_session *s,
> union perf_event *event,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (!list_empty(cache)) {
> - new = list_entry(cache->next, struct ordered_event, list);
> - list_del(&new->list);
> - } else if (q->buffer) {
> - new = q->buffer + q->buffer_idx;
> - if (++q->buffer_idx == MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER)
> - q->buffer = NULL;
> - } else {
> - q->buffer = malloc(MAX_SAMPLE_BUFFER * sizeof(*new));
> - if (!q->buffer)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - list_add(&q->buffer->list, &q->to_free);
> - q->buffer_idx = 2;
> - new = q->buffer + 1;
> + new = ordered_events_get(q, timestamp);
> + if (new) {
> + new->file_offset = file_offset;
> + new->event = event;
> }
What about make it like below:
if (!new)
return -ENOMEM;
This way we can share more of the original code.
Thanks,
Namhyung
>
> - new->timestamp = timestamp;
> - new->file_offset = file_offset;
> - new->event = event;
> -
> - __queue_event(new, s);
> -
> - return 0;
> + return new ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> static void callchain__printf(struct perf_sample *sample)
--
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/
