On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:57:16 -0600
Ross Zwisler <zwisler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static int iter_custom_cmp(const void *A, const void *B, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct iter_custom_data *cust_data = data;
> > + struct traceeval_iterator *iter = cust_data->iter;
> > + struct traceeval *teval = iter->teval;
> > + const struct entry *a = *((const struct entry **)A);
> > + const struct entry *b = *((const struct entry **)B);
> > +
> > + return cust_data->sort_fn(teval, a->keys, a->vals, b->keys, b->vals,
> > + cust_data->data);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int traceeval_iterator_sort_custom(struct traceeval_iterator *iter,
> > + traceeval_cmp_fn sort_fn, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct iter_custom_data cust_data = {
> > + .iter = iter,
> > + .sort_fn = sort_fn,
> > + .data = data
> > + };
> > +
> > + qsort_r(iter->entries, iter->nr_entries, sizeof(*iter->entries),
> > + iter_custom_cmp, &cust_data);
>
> I guess I don't yet see what this gives us over the existing sorting and
> iterators? Does this do the same thing, we just pass in the sort function
> instead of calling traceeval_iterator_sort() one or more times?
This should be used in replace of the other sorting. It allows the user to
make a complex sort. If you look at the last patch, the sample uses this:
+/*
+ * Sort all the processes by the RUNNING state.
+ * If A and B have the same COMM, then sort by state.
+ * else
+ * Find the RUNNNIG state for A and B
+ * If the RUNNING state does not exist, it's considered -1
+ * If RUNNING is equal, then sort by COMM.
+ */
+static int compare_pdata(struct traceeval *teval_data,
+ const union traceeval_data *Akeys,
+ const union traceeval_data *Avals,
+ const union traceeval_data *Bkeys,
+ const union traceeval_data *Bvals,
+ void *data)
+{
+ struct traceeval *teval = data; /* The deltas are here */
+ union traceeval_data keysA[] = {
+ { .cstring = Akeys[0].cstring }, { .number = RUNNING } };
+ union traceeval_data keysB[] = {
+ { .cstring = Bkeys[0].cstring }, { .number = RUNNING } };
+ struct traceeval_stat *statA;
+ struct traceeval_stat *statB;
+ unsigned long long totalA = -1;
+ unsigned long long totalB = -1;
+
+ /* First check if we are on the same task */
+ if (strcmp(Akeys[0].cstring, Bkeys[0].cstring) == 0) {
+ /* Sort decending */
+ if (Bkeys[1].number > Akeys[1].number)
+ return -1;
+ return Bkeys[1].number != Akeys[1].number;
+ }
+
+ /* Get the RUNNING values for both processes */
+ statA = traceeval_stat(teval, keysA, &delta_vals[0]);
+ if (statA)
+ totalA = traceeval_stat_total(statA);
+
+ statB = traceeval_stat(teval, keysB, &delta_vals[0]);
+ if (statB)
+ totalB = traceeval_stat_total(statB);
+
+ if (totalB < totalA)
+ return -1;
+ if (totalB > totalA)
+ return 1;
+
+ return strcmp(Bkeys[0].cstring, Akeys[0].cstring);
+}
>
> > +
> > + iter->needs_sort = false;
>
> Also probably need to set
> iter->next = 0;
So much for redundancy!
Thanks,
-- Steve
>
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
|