[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081028074816.04193e04@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:48:16 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Morton recently suggested having an in-kernel way to profile
> > likely and unlikely macros. This patch achieves that goal.
>
> Maybe I'm confused, but when I read through the patch, it looks like
> that 'hit' is incremented whenever the condition is true, and 'missed'
> is incremented whenever the condition is false, correct?
>
> Is that what you intended? So for profile_unlikely, "missed" is good,
> and "hit" is bad, and for profile_likely, "hit" is good, and "missed"
> is bad. That seems horribly confusing.
>
> If that wasn't what you intended, the meaning of "hit" and "missed"
> seems to be highly confusing, either way. Can we perhaps use some
> other terminology? Simply using "True" and "False" would be better,
> since there's no possible confusion what the labels mean.
or "correct" and "incorrect"
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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