Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Rewrite core context handling

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 11:54:24AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:

> +static void perf_event_swap_task_ctx_data(struct perf_event_context *prev_ctx,
> +					  struct perf_event_context *next_ctx)
> +{
> +	struct perf_event_pmu_context *prev_epc, *next_epc;
> +
> +	if (!prev_ctx->nr_task_data)
> +		return;
> +
> +	prev_epc = list_first_entry(&prev_ctx->pmu_ctx_list,
> +				    struct perf_event_pmu_context,
> +				    pmu_ctx_entry);
> +	next_epc = list_first_entry(&next_ctx->pmu_ctx_list,
> +				    struct perf_event_pmu_context,
> +				    pmu_ctx_entry);
> +
> +	while (&prev_epc->pmu_ctx_entry != &prev_ctx->pmu_ctx_list &&
> +	       &next_epc->pmu_ctx_entry != &next_ctx->pmu_ctx_list) {
> +
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(prev_epc->pmu != next_epc->pmu);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * PMU specific parts of task perf context can require
> +		 * additional synchronization. As an example of such
> +		 * synchronization see implementation details of Intel
> +		 * LBR call stack data profiling;
> +		 */
> +		if (prev_epc->pmu->swap_task_ctx)
> +			prev_epc->pmu->swap_task_ctx(prev_epc, next_epc);
> +		else
> +			swap(prev_epc->task_ctx_data, next_epc->task_ctx_data);

Did I forget to advance the iterators here?

> +	}
> +}