Re: [PATCH] kill pointless perfmon abstractions

From: Stephane Eranian <eranian_at_hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2003-10-09 04:51:14
John,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:05:10PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> 
> Another small patch, there's no benefit to having the extra code
> here.
> 

Well, it is because you only know part of the story ;-< These abstractions
are here to mask differences between the various kernels out there.
Internally I try to maintain the same perfmon-2 (perfmon.c/perfmon.h) 
for 2.6, 2.4, RH EL, and Suse SLES. All of those have slight differences which 
are abstracted by the code you are trying to remove in this patch.
The version I export to David contains only the support for 2.6, the
version-specific definitions are maintained in a separate header file in
my tree. Only the section relevant to 2.6 is included in David's perfmon.c file.
I have tried to keep those abstractions to a minimum and avoid all #ifdef.

> 
> Index: linux-ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/linux-2.5/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.35
> diff -u -a -p -r1.35 perfmon.c
> --- linux-ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c	19 Sep 2003 21:01:14 -0000	1.35
> +++ linux-ia64/arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c	8 Oct 2003 13:57:44 -0000
> @@ -544,14 +542,8 @@ static struct vm_operations_struct pfm_v
>  	close: pfm_vm_close
>  };
>  
> -#define pfm_wait_task_inactive(t)	wait_task_inactive(t)
>  #define pfm_get_cpu_var(v)		__ia64_per_cpu_var(v)
>  #define pfm_get_cpu_data(a,b)		per_cpu(a, b)
> -typedef	irqreturn_t	pfm_irq_handler_t;
> -#define PFM_IRQ_HANDLER_RET(v)	do {  \
> -		put_cpu_no_resched(); \
> -		return IRQ_HANDLED;   \
> -	} while(0);
>  
>  static inline void
>  pfm_put_task(struct task_struct *task)
> @@ -2588,7 +2567,7 @@ pfm_task_incompatible(pfm_context_t *ctx
>  	/*
>  	 * make sure the task is off any CPU
>  	 */
> -	pfm_wait_task_inactive(task);
> +	wait_task_inactive(task);
>  
>  	/* more to come... */
>  
> @@ -4686,7 +4665,7 @@ pfm_check_task_state(pfm_context_t *ctx,
>  
>  	UNPROTECT_CTX(ctx, flags);
>  
> -	pfm_wait_task_inactive(task);
> +	wait_task_inactive(task);
>  
>  	PROTECT_CTX(ctx, flags);
>  
> @@ -5407,7 +5386,7 @@ report_spurious:
>  	return -1;
>  }
>  
> -static pfm_irq_handler_t
> +static irqreturn_t
>  pfm_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *arg, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
>  	unsigned long start_cycles, total_cycles;
> @@ -5436,7 +5415,9 @@ pfm_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *arg
>  
>  		pfm_stats[this_cpu].pfm_ovfl_intr_cycles += total_cycles;
>  	}
> -	PFM_IRQ_HANDLER_RET();
> +
> +	put_cpu_no_resched();
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }
>  
>  
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 

-Stephane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Oct 8 15:08:00 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:19 EST