Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:54:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perfcounters: record time running and time enabled
	for each counter
Message-ID: <20090321155442.GB6356@elte.hu>
References: <18884.55232.197620.696687@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090321055252.eb0673ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090321055252.eb0673ea.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1183
Lines: 37


* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > @@ -243,6 +259,8 @@ struct perf_counter {
> >  
> >  	struct perf_counter		*parent;
> >  	struct list_head		child_list;
> > +	atomic64_t			child_time_enabled;
> > +	atomic64_t			child_time_running;
> 
> These read like booleans, but why are they atomic64_t's?

for inherited counters these values get collected back into a 
'parent counter' in a lockless way - hence to not lose statistics on 
SMP they need to be atomic64_t.

> > @@ -290,6 +308,8 @@ struct perf_counter_context {
> >  	int			nr_active;
> >  	int			is_active;
> >  	struct task_struct	*task;
> > +	u64			time_now;
> > +	u64			time_lost;
> >  #endif
> >  };
> 
> I don't have a copy of this header file handy, but from the 
> snippet I see here, it doesn't look as though it is as clear and 
> as understadable as we can possibly make it?

i'll post the latest perfcounters tree - it's time for that anyway.

	Ingo
--
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/