[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709261543.l8QFhLC0028883@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:43:21 -0400
From: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
Cc: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@....linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops
In message <2DDDD55D-4445-4565-9384-4E4BE7B41D7D@....com>, Kyle Moffett writes:
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
> > Recently we've done a full audit of the entire code, and added un/
> > likely where we felt that the chance of succeeding is 95% or better
> > (e.g., error conditions that should rarely happen, and such).
>
> Actually due to the performance penalty on some systems I think you
> only want to use it if the chance of succeeding is 99% or better, as
> the benefit if predicted is a cycle or two and the harm if
> mispredicted can be more than 50 cycles, depending on the CPU.
*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated
probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and
you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio). The difference between
the number of cycles saved/added is very compelling. Given that I certainly
agree with you that I'm using un/likely too much. I'll re-evaluate and
update my patch series then.
Thanks,
Erez.
-
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