Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:02:56 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
Cc:     acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
        jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        eranian@google.com, ak@linux.intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        frederic@kernel.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com, irogers@google.com,
        will@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        srw@sladewatkins.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        sandipan.das@amd.com, ananth.narayan@amd.com, kim.phillips@amd.com,
        santosh.shukla@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Rewrite core context handling
Message-ID: <Y0V3kOWInrvCvVtk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221008062424.313-1-ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
 <Y0VTn0qLWd925etP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ba47d079-6d97-0412-69a0-fa15999b5024@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ba47d079-6d97-0412-69a0-fa15999b5024@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 06:49:55PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> On 11-Oct-22 4:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 11:54:24AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > 
> >> +static void perf_event_swap_task_ctx_data(struct perf_event_context *prev_ctx,
> >> +					  struct perf_event_context *next_ctx)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct perf_event_pmu_context *prev_epc, *next_epc;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!prev_ctx->nr_task_data)
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >> +	prev_epc = list_first_entry(&prev_ctx->pmu_ctx_list,
> >> +				    struct perf_event_pmu_context,
> >> +				    pmu_ctx_entry);
> >> +	next_epc = list_first_entry(&next_ctx->pmu_ctx_list,
> >> +				    struct perf_event_pmu_context,
> >> +				    pmu_ctx_entry);
> >> +
> >> +	while (&prev_epc->pmu_ctx_entry != &prev_ctx->pmu_ctx_list &&
> >> +	       &next_epc->pmu_ctx_entry != &next_ctx->pmu_ctx_list) {
> >> +
> >> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(prev_epc->pmu != next_epc->pmu);
> >> +
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * PMU specific parts of task perf context can require
> >> +		 * additional synchronization. As an example of such
> >> +		 * synchronization see implementation details of Intel
> >> +		 * LBR call stack data profiling;
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if (prev_epc->pmu->swap_task_ctx)
> >> +			prev_epc->pmu->swap_task_ctx(prev_epc, next_epc);
> >> +		else
> >> +			swap(prev_epc->task_ctx_data, next_epc->task_ctx_data);
> > 
> > Did I forget to advance the iterators here?
> 
> Yeah. Seems so. I overlooked it too.

OK; so I'm not slowly going crazy staring at this code ;-) Let me go add
it now then. :-)

But first I gotta taxi the kids around for a bit, bbl.