Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755360AbYKZVT3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:19:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752509AbYKZVTR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:19:17 -0500 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:36816 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752322AbYKZVTR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:19:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:18:09 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andi Kleen cc: eranian@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, x86@kernel.org, eranian@gmail.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au Subject: Re: [patch 05/24] perfmon: X86 generic code (x86) In-Reply-To: <20081126140054.GX6703@one.firstfloor.org> Message-ID: References: <492d0be1.09cc660a.0b75.44b7@mx.google.com> <20081126140054.GX6703@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1399 Lines: 39 On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > + * does not work with other types of PMU registers.Thus, no > > > + * address is ever exposed by counters > > > + * > > > + * - there is never a dependency between one pmd register and > > > + * another > > > + */ > > > + for (i = 0; num; i++) { > > > + if (likely(pfm_arch_bv_test_bit(i, set->used_pmds))) { > > > + pfm_write_pmd(ctx, i, set->pmds[i]); > > > + num--; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > This loop construct looks scary. It relies on set->nused_pmds >= > > bits set in set->used_pmds. I had to look more than once to > > understand that. It's used all over the code in variations. > > FWIW this loop style tripped me up during review too. It's even worse than I thought when looking at it a second time: All the loops iterate over an array which means in the worst case we do full array_size iterations. In each iteration we check whether the corresponding bit in the bitmask is set or not. What a nonsense. We have a bitmask already. Why not iterate over the bitmask and be done ? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/