[PATCH] perf: Rewrite core context handling

[Ravi Bangoria]

> So the basic issue I mentioned is that:
> 
> 
> /*
>  *           ,------------------------[1:n]---------------------.
>  *           V                                                  V
>  * perf_event_context <-[1:n]-> perf_event_pmu_context <--- perf_event
>  *           ^                      ^     |                     |
>  *           `--------[1:n]---------'     `-[n:1]-> pmu <-[1:n]-'
>  *
>  *
>  * XXX destroy epc when empty
>  *   refcount, !rcu
>  *
>  * XXX epc locking
>  *
>  *   event->pmu_ctx            ctx->mutex && inactive
>  *   ctx->pmu_ctx_list         ctx->mutex && ctx->lock
>  *
>  */
> struct perf_event_pmu_context {
> 	...
>         atomic_t                        refcount; /* event <-> epc */
> 	...
> }
> 
> But that then also suggests that:
> 
> struct perf_event_context {
> 	...
>         refcount_t                      refcount;
> 	...
> }
> 
> should be: ctx <-> epc, and that is not so, the ctx::refcount still
> counts the number of events.
> 
> Now this might not be bad, but it is confusing.

I don't have strong opinion, but we store events in ctx, not in pmu_ctx.
So, I think it makes sense to keep refcount as ctx <-> event?

[...]

> +void perf_pmu_migrate_context(struct pmu *pmu, int src_cpu, int dst_cpu)
> +{
> +	struct perf_event_context *src_ctx, *dst_ctx;
> +	LIST_HEAD(events);
> +
> +	src_ctx = &per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_context, src_cpu)->ctx;
> +	dst_ctx = &per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_context, dst_cpu)->ctx;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * See perf_event_ctx_lock() for comments on the details
> +	 * of swizzling perf_event::ctx.
> +	 */
> +	mutex_lock_double(&src_ctx->mutex, &dst_ctx->mutex);
> +
> +	__perf_pmu_remove(src_ctx, src_cpu, pmu, &src_src->pinned_groups, &events);
> +	__perf_pmu_remove(src_ctx, src_cpu, pmu, &src_src->flexible_groups, &events);

Rbtrees does not contain sibling events. Shouldn't we continue using
event_list here?

Thanks,
Ravi