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 S1751762AbcBJOoQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:44:16 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f66.google.com ([209.85.220.66]:33908 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751578AbcBJOoI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:44:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:42:56 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/23] perf hists browser: Count number of hierarchy
 entries
Message-ID: <20160210144256.GF4301@danjae.kornet>
References: <1454677315-7515-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <1454677315-7515-17-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20160210125208.GA15597@krava.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160210125208.GA15597@krava.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:52:08PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 10:01:48PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > +static int hierarchy_count_rows(struct hist_browser *hb, struct hist_entry *he,
> > +				bool include_children)
> > +{
> > +	int count = 0;
> > +	struct rb_node *node;
> > +	struct hist_entry *child;
> > +
> > +	if (he->leaf)
> > +		return callchain__count_rows(&he->sorted_chain);
> > +
> > +	node = rb_first(&he->hroot_out);
> > +	while (node) {
> > +		float percent;
> > +
> > +		child = rb_entry(node, struct hist_entry, rb_node);
> > +		percent = hist_entry__get_percent_limit(child);
> > +
> > +		if (!child->filtered && percent >= hb->min_pcnt) {
> > +			count++;
> > +
> > +			if (include_children && child->unfolded)
> > +				count += hierarchy_count_rows(hb, child, true);
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		node = rb_next(node);
> > +	}
> > +	return count;
> > +}
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > +		if (he->leaf)
> > +			browser->nr_callchain_rows -= he->nr_rows;
> >  		else
> > +			browser->nr_hierarchy_entries -= he->nr_rows;
> > +
> > +		if (symbol_conf.report_hierarchy)
> > +			child_rows = hierarchy_count_rows(browser, he, true);
> > +
> > +		if (he->unfolded) {
> > +			if (he->leaf)
> > +				he->nr_rows = callchain__count_rows(&he->sorted_chain);
> > +			else
> > +				he->nr_rows = hierarchy_count_rows(browser, he, false);
> 
> looks like above condition could go to just following call:
> 
> 			he->nr_rows = hierarchy_count_rows(browser, he, false);
> 
> because there's same condtiion in the hierarchy_count_rows function

That's true.  But I wrote it that way since it's aligned with other
part of the code.

Thanks,
Namhyung