From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751653AbdEII0u (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 04:26:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39386 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751061AbdEII0r (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 04:26:47 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1AF692D9FC3 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jolsa@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 1AF692D9FC3 Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:26:44 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: "Jin, Yao" Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type Message-ID: <20170509082644.GB22125@krava> References: <1492690075-17243-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1492690075-17243-3-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20170423135559.GA23073@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 09 May 2017 08:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 08:47:14AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: > > > On 4/23/2017 9:55 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:07:50PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > +#define X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX 16 > > > + > > > +static int > > > +common_branch_type(int type) > > > +{ > > > + int i, mask; > > > + const int branch_map[X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX] = { > > > + PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_CALL */ > > > + PERF_BR_RET, /* X86_BR_RET */ > > > + PERF_BR_SYSCALL, /* X86_BR_SYSCALL */ > > > + PERF_BR_SYSRET, /* X86_BR_SYSRET */ > > > + PERF_BR_INT, /* X86_BR_INT */ > > > + PERF_BR_IRET, /* X86_BR_IRET */ > > > + PERF_BR_JCC, /* X86_BR_JCC */ > > > + PERF_BR_JMP, /* X86_BR_JMP */ > > > + PERF_BR_IRQ, /* X86_BR_IRQ */ > > > + PERF_BR_IND_CALL, /* X86_BR_IND_CALL */ > > > + PERF_BR_NONE, /* X86_BR_ABORT */ > > > + PERF_BR_NONE, /* X86_BR_IN_TX */ > > > + PERF_BR_NONE, /* X86_BR_NO_TX */ > > > + PERF_BR_CALL, /* X86_BR_ZERO_CALL */ > > > + PERF_BR_NONE, /* X86_BR_CALL_STACK */ > > > + PERF_BR_IND_JMP, /* X86_BR_IND_JMP */ > > > + }; > > > + > > > + type >>= 2; /* skip X86_BR_USER and X86_BR_KERNEL */ > > > + mask = ~(~0 << 1); > > is that a fancy way to get 1 into the mask? what do I miss? you did not comment on this one > > > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX; i++) { > > > + if (type & mask) > > > + return branch_map[i]; > > I wonder some bit search would be faster in here, but maybe not big deal > > > > jirka > > I just think the branch_map[] doesn't contain many entries (16 entries > here), so maybe checking 1 bit one time should be acceptable. I just want to > keep the code simple. > > But if the number of entries is more (e.g. 64), maybe it'd better check 2 or > 4 bits one time. ook jirka