On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 8:48 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:31:40 -0700
> Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > @@ -2391,60 +2460,61 @@ static int check_expr_operands(struct trace_array *tr,
> > static struct hist_field *parse_expr(struct hist_trigger_data *hist_data,
> > struct trace_event_file *file,
> > char *str, unsigned long flags,
> > - char *var_name, unsigned int level)
> > + char *var_name, unsigned int *n_subexprs)
> > {
> > struct hist_field *operand1 = NULL, *operand2 = NULL, *expr = NULL;
> > unsigned long operand_flags;
> > int field_op, ret = -EINVAL;
> > char *sep, *operand1_str;
> >
> > - if (level > 3) {
> > + if (*n_subexprs > 3) {
>
> Why limit the sub expressions, and not just keep the limit of the level of
> recursion. We allow 3 levels of recursion, but we could have more than 3
> sub expressions.
>
>
> If we have: a * b + c / d - e * f / h
>
> It would break down into:
> -
> + /
> * / * h
> a b c d e f
>
>
> Which I believe is 6 "sub expressions", but never goes more than three deep
> in recursion:
>
> "a * b + c / d - e * f / h"
>
> Step 1:
>
> op = "-"
> operand1 = "a * b + c / d"
> operand2 = "e * f / h"
>
> Process operand1: (recursion level 1)
>
> op = "+"
> operand1a = "a * b"
> operand2a = "c / d"
>
> Process operand1a: (recursion level 2)
>
> op = "*"
> operand1b = "a"
> operand2b = "b"
>
> return;
>
> Process operand1b: (recursion level 2)
>
> op = "/"
> operand1b = "c"
> operand2b = "d"
>
> return;
>
> return;
>
> Process operand2: (recursion level 1)
>
> op = "/"
> operand1c = "e * f"
> operand2c = "h"
>
> Process operand1c: (recursion level 2)
>
> op = "*"
> operand1c = "e"
> operand2c = "f"
>
> return;
>
> return;
>
>
>
> > +
> > + /* LHS of string is an expression e.g. a+b in a+b+c */
> > + operand1 = parse_expr(hist_data, file, operand1_str, operand_flags, NULL, n_subexprs);
> > if (IS_ERR(operand1)) {
> > ret = PTR_ERR(operand1);
> > operand1 = NULL;
>
> I wonder if we should look for optimizations, in case of operand1 and
> operand2 are both constants?
>
> Just perform the function, and convert it into a constant as well.
I think we achieve something like this by propagating up the
HIST_FIELD_FL_CONST flag. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll update this
in the next version.
Thanks,
Kalesh
>
> -- Steve
