lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:19:07 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com> To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com> CC: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, rjw@...k.pl Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: fix 32-bit PIO regression Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Do you really think that the transfers having lengths non-divisible by > 4 make any *significant* percentage even on the ATAPI devices? I think > it's you who is really wrong. The answer depends on workload. Though rare, workloads do exist that involve a lot of oddball querying via weird, vendor-specific SCSI[-ish] commands. Moreover, the likelihood and cost of a branch mispredict are both low in this case, IMO. Or a more human version of the rule: if you have to have a long email thread about unlikely() placement, it is best just to avoid using unlikely() in that case at all. Branch prediction units in modern CPUs are damned good anyways, and there is always the likelihood that a human-placed unlikely() becomes wrong in the future. Plus the code is more readable without unlikely(), IMO. Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists