[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709261651.l8QGp5bA031636@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:51:05 -0400
From: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>, Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
"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 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709261845110.7066@...rervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>, Jan Engelhardt writes:
>
> On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote:
> >
> >*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
>
> ;-)
>
> 19:1 <=> 95:5 <=> 95% <=> ratio=0.95 != 20.0 (=20/1)
>
> >you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio). The difference between
>
> 99:1 <=> 99% <=> ratio=0.99 != 100.0 (=100/1)
>
> >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.
Yeah, close enough. :-)
The important issue is that I'm probably using about five times too many
un/likely wrappers.
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