> On Feb 27, 2019, at 5:21 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:20:18PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>> index 8c902276d4b4..61b87c8111e6 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> #include "debug.h"
>> #include "units.h"
>> #include "asm/bug.h"
>> +#include "bpf-event.h"
>> #include <signal.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>>
>> @@ -1841,3 +1842,102 @@ struct perf_evsel
>> *perf_evlist__reset_weak_group(struct perf_evlist *evsel_list,
>> }
>> return leader;
>> }
>> +
>> +static struct perf_evlist *sb_evlist;
>> +pthread_t poll_thread;
>
> so some of the things are static and some like poll_args
> you alloced on the stack.. I dont like this interface,
> could we come up with something generic? perhaps
> encapsulated in perf_evlist, like:
>
> struct perf_evlist {
> ...
> struct {
> pthread_t th;
> int state;
> } thread;
> };
>
> typedef int (perf_evlist__thread_cb_t)(perf_evlist, union perf_event
> *event,....)
>
> perf_evlist__start_thread(perf_evlist, perf_evlist__thread_cb_t cb);
> perf_evlist__stop_thread(perf_evlist);
>
>
> jirka
More questions on this proposal:
IIUC, this approach creates one perf_evlist and one thread for each side band
event (only bpf for now, more afterwards). Each of these perf_evlists will
create its own ring buffer.
On the other hand, current patch allows different events to share the thread,
the perf_evlist, and the ring buffer.
If my understanding is correct, current patch would be more efficient down the
road? Did I miss some downsides of current patch?
Thanks,
Song
