Em Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:06:35PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:48:52PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> > @@ -380,10 +381,13 @@ static struct thread
> >> > *__machine__findnew_thread(struct machine *machine,
> >> > if (!create)
> >> > return NULL;
> >> >
> >> > - th = thread__new(pid, tid);
> >> > + th = thread__new(machine, pid, tid);
> >> > if (th != NULL) {
> >> > +
> >> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&machine->threads_lock);
> >> > rb_link_node(&th->rb_node, parent, p);
> >> > rb_insert_color(&th->rb_node, &machine->threads);
> >> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&machine->threads_lock);
> >>
> >> I think you also need to protect the rb tree traversal above.
> >
> > yep, I already have another version.. but it blows on another place ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> But this makes every sample processing grabs and releases the lock so
> >> might cause high overhead. It can be a problem if such processing is
> >> done parallelly like my multi-thread work. :-/
> >
> > yep.. perhaps instead of more locking we need to find a way where
> > only single thread do the update on hists/threads
>
> Agreed.
>
> AFAIK the reason we do ref-counting is to cleanup dead/exited thread
> for live session like perf top. In that case we can somehow mark
> to-be-deleted thread and kill it in a safe time/place..
Humm, you mean have another list node in struct threads and add threads
to another dead_threads like list, i.e. one that is _really_ dead as no
more refcounts point to it, and then amortize the costs of removing it
from the rb_tree by removing multiple threads instead of just one?
- Arnaldo
--
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/
