Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] perf/events: Use helper functions in event assignment to shrink macro size | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:57 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 09:03 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 10:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > +void perf_trace_event_submit(void *raw_data, struct ftrace_event_call *event_call, > > > + struct perf_trace_event *pe) > > > +{ > > > + struct hlist_head *head; > > > + > > > + head = this_cpu_ptr(event_call->perf_events); > > > + perf_trace_buf_submit(raw_data, pe->entry_size, pe->rctx, pe->addr, > > > + pe->count, &pe->regs, head); > > > +} > > > > Can you make perf_trace_buf_submit() go away? Its reduced to a simple > > fwd function and layering another wrapper on top seems like pushing it. > > You mean just have perf_trace_event_submit() call perf_tp_event() > directly? > > I have no problem with that. Although I may make that into a separate > patch to keep this patch as a 'move' and the other patch as the change. > > Looking at the history of perf_trace_buf_submit(), it use to be more > than one function call. But when you inlined > perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(), it became just a one2one mapping.
Right.
> I'm assuming that we want to convert all calls to > perf_trace_buf_submit()s into perf_tp_event()?
Yeah.. I think you're referring to the {u,k}probes open-coded nonsense? Should we make those use these new helpers you created as well?
| |