[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200610032324.29454.ajwade@cpe001346162bf9-cm0011ae8cd564.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:24:27 -0400
From: Andrew James Wade <andrew.j.wade@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 21:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> There are changes here: in the old code we'll avoid reading the static
> variable. In the new code we'll read the static variable, but we'll avoid
> evaluating the condition.
Tim Chen's patch goes back to the old behaviour. I suspect the cache
misses on __warn_once is what he is measuring. If so, the (untested)
patch below should reduce the cache misses back to those of the old
code.
signed-off-by: Andrew Wade <andrew.j.wade@...il.com>
diff -rupN a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
--- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2006-10-03 13:58:40.000000000 -0400
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2006-10-03 23:17:37.000000000 -0400
@@ -45,9 +45,10 @@
static int __warn_once = 1; \
typeof(condition) __ret_warn_once = (condition);\
\
- if (likely(__warn_once)) \
- if (WARN_ON(__ret_warn_once)) \
+ if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once) && __warn_once) { \
__warn_once = 0; \
+ WARN_ON(1); \
+ }; \
unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \
})
-
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