Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf tools: ARM SPE code cleanup

[Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>]

Hi Arnaldo,

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 09:02:20AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 02:34:36PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:11:11PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> > > - Firstly, the function auxtrace_record__init() will be invoked only
> > >   once, the variable "arm_spe_pmus" will not be used afterwards, thus
> > >   we don't need to check "arm_spe_pmus" is NULL or not;
> > > - Another reason is, even though SPE is micro-architecture dependent,
> > >   but so far it only supports "statistical-profiling-extension-v1" and
> > >   we have no chance to use multiple SPE's PMU events in Perf command.
> > 
> > I find the above changelog somewhat out of touch with the patch itself.  The
> > only thing that is happening here is the removal of a useless check and a fix
> > for a memory leak.
> 
> Humm, I think the original intent of that code was to cache the results
> of find_all_arm_spe_pmus(), as the variable it is assigned to is static.
> 
> So not a leak, as there was that static reference to it to reuse it
> later, but that is strange in a function named "__init()" which usually
> is called only once, anyway, so I think that the paragraph with
> "Firstly" is kinda ok, but confusing, I think it should read:
> 
> - auxtrace_record__init() is called only once, so there is no point in
>   using a static variable to cache the results of
>   find_all_arm_spe_pmus(), make it local and free the results after use.
> 
> The second paragraph is SPE specific, so I'm not qualified to judge on
> it.
> 
> I'm replacing the first paragraph with the version I wrote and keep it
> in my local branch, please holler if you think I misunderstood.

Thanks a lot for this.  These two paragraphs were coming from reviewing
and comments, but I think your rephrasing is very sufficient to describe
what this patch is doing :)

Thanks,
Leo

> > Once again whether Arnaldo wants to make the changes by hand or not you may have
> > to resubmit.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> > 
> > > 
> > > So remove the useless check code to make it clear.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/perf/arch/arm/util/auxtrace.c | 9 ++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/auxtrace.c b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/auxtrace.c
> > > index 28a5d0c18b1d..b187bddbd01a 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/auxtrace.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm/util/auxtrace.c
> > > @@ -57,17 +57,15 @@ struct auxtrace_record
> > >  	struct evsel *evsel;
> > >  	bool found_etm = false;
> > >  	struct perf_pmu *found_spe = NULL;
> > > -	static struct perf_pmu **arm_spe_pmus = NULL;
> > > -	static int nr_spes = 0;
> > > +	struct perf_pmu **arm_spe_pmus = NULL;
> > > +	int nr_spes = 0;
> > >  	int i = 0;
> > >  
> > >  	if (!evlist)
> > >  		return NULL;
> > >  
> > >  	cs_etm_pmu = perf_pmu__find(CORESIGHT_ETM_PMU_NAME);
> > > -
> > > -	if (!arm_spe_pmus)
> > > -		arm_spe_pmus = find_all_arm_spe_pmus(&nr_spes, err);
> > > +	arm_spe_pmus = find_all_arm_spe_pmus(&nr_spes, err);
> > >  
> > >  	evlist__for_each_entry(evlist, evsel) {
> > >  		if (cs_etm_pmu &&
> > > @@ -84,6 +82,7 @@ struct auxtrace_record
> > >  			}
> > >  		}
> > >  	}
> > > +	free(arm_spe_pmus);
> > >  
> > >  	if (found_etm && found_spe) {
> > >  		pr_err("Concurrent ARM Coresight ETM and SPE operation not currently supported\n");
> > > -- 
> > > 2.17.1
> > > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> - Arnaldo