From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751454AbdE2MDq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 29 May 2017 08:03:46 -0400
Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:1155 "EHLO mga04.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751173AbdE2MDm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 29 May 2017 08:03:42 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,414,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1135862972"
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@intel.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@intel.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@intel.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi
In-Reply-To: <1e962b59-3e39-e0d6-515d-c4fd3502edae@linux.intel.com>
References: <1e962b59-3e39-e0d6-515d-c4fd3502edae@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.23.7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 15:03:35 +0300
Message-ID: <87k24zzx7s.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com> writes:

Here (above the function) you could include a comment describing what
happens when this is called, locking considerations, etc.

> +static int
> +perf_cpu_tree_insert(struct rb_root *tree, struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> +	struct rb_node **node;
> +	struct rb_node *parent;
> +
> +	if (!tree || !event)
> +		return 0;

I don't think this should be happening, should it? And either way you
probably don't want to return 0 here, unless you're using !0 for
success.

> +
> +	node = &tree->rb_node;
> +	parent = *node;
> +
> +	while (*node) {
> +		struct perf_event *node_event =	container_of(*node,
> +				struct perf_event, group_node);
> +
> +		parent = *node;
> +
> +		if (event->cpu < node_event->cpu) {
> +			node = &((*node)->rb_left);

this would be the same as node = &parent->rb_left, right?

> +		} else if (event->cpu > node_event->cpu) {
> +			node = &((*node)->rb_right);
> +		} else {
> +			list_add_tail(&event->group_list_entry,
> +					&node_event->group_list);

So why is this better than simply having per-cpu event lists plus one
for per-thread events?

Also,

> +			return 2;

2?

> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	list_add_tail(&event->group_list_entry, &event->group_list);
> +
> +	rb_link_node(&event->group_node, parent, node);
> +	rb_insert_color(&event->group_node, tree);
> +
> +	return 1;

Oh, you are using !0 for success. I guess it's a good thing you're not
actually checking its return code at the call site.

Regards,
--
Alex