Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_counter: cleanup for __perf_event_sched_in()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <19128.39768.149110.673711@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
References: <4AB88F06.10900@cn.fujitsu.com>
	 <19128.39768.149110.673711@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:17:10 +0200
Message-Id: <1253618230.7695.28.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1193
Lines: 32

On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 19:39 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Xiao Guangrong writes:
> 
> > It must be a group leader if event->attr.pinned is "1"
> 
> Actually, looking at this more closely, it has to be a group leader
> anyway since it's at the top level of ctx->group_list.  In fact I see
> four places where we do:
> 
> 		list_for_each_entry(event, &ctx->group_list, group_entry) {
> 			if (event == event->group_leader)
> 				...
> 
> or the equivalent, three of which appear to have been introduced by
> afedadf2 ("perf_counter: Optimize sched in/out of counters") back in
> May by Peter Z.
> 
> As far as I can see the if () is superfluous in each case (a singleton
> event will be a group of 1 and will have its group_leader pointing to
> itself).  Peter, do you agree or have I missed something?

/me kicks those neurons back to work..

Ah, yes, I think you're right, the second hunk of afedadf2 is a
pessimisation due to the extra branch.


--
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/