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 S1751823AbbETAHn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 May 2015 20:07:43 -0400
Received: from lgeamrelo02.lge.com ([156.147.1.126]:60042 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo02.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750994AbbETAHl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 May 2015 20:07:41 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.203
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:58:13 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/40] perf session: Separate struct machines from session
Message-ID: <20150519235813.GB22713@sejong>
References: <1431909055-21442-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <1431909055-21442-34-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20150518125259.GE15972@kernel.org>
 <20150519072815.GL21663@sejong>
 <20150519224618.GC26111@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150519224618.GC26111@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:46:18PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:28:15PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:52:59AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:30:48AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > With multi-thread report, separate sessions can be passed to each
> > > > thread, in this case we should keep a single machine state for all
> > > > struct sessions.  Separate machines and have a pointer in sessions.
> > > 
> > > I had to look at all the patch to semi-figure this out, i.e. you said it
> > > should be separated from 'perf_session', agreed.
> > > 
> > > But who will create it?  How will it be passed to the perf_session
> > > instances?
> > > 
> > > Most of the patch is making session->machines be turned into a pointer,
> > > but the meat, i.e. who creates it, is unclear, I see a malloc in
> > > perf_session__new(), where I was kinda expecting that a higer layer,
> > > perhaps in struct tool? Would create the list of all machines (struct
> > > machines) and then pass it to multiple perf_session__new() calls.
> > > 
> > > But then perf_session__delete() calls 'free(session->machines)', huh?
> > 
> > OK.  So, this is what I have in my head:
> > 
> >   perf_tool__create_machines(tool) {
> >     tool->machines = malloc();
> >     machines__init(tool->machines);
> >   }
> 
> 
> Probably, but then in this case you would call machines__new(), that
> does the malloc and init.
> 
> > 
> >   perf_session__new(file, repipe, tool) {
> >     session->machines = tool->machines;
> >     ...
> >   }
> 
> That could be ok.
> 
> > 
> >   perf_tool__delete_machines(tool) {
> >     /* call machines-related destructors */
> >     free(tool->machines);
> >   }
> 
> That would be machines__delete(tool->machines), that calls
> machine__exit() and then does the free.

Right.  I'll change it this way.

Thanks,
Namhyung