linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810281050440.29482@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, 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, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> 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"

This means that the code will need to be different for both. Or at least a 
way to differentiate between the two.  Not that hard, but I wanted to make 
the code as trivial as possible.

-- Steve

--
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/