linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3][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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810301106360.4935@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
cc:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.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>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely
 annotations


On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:32:39PM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 October 2008 18:39:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > >    69768    61064  87 __switch_to                    process_64.c         624
> > >    15557   115251 100 __switch_to                    process_64.c         594
> > >    15555   115227 100 __switch_to                    process_64.c         590
> > 
> > I may be out of school for a while, but that math sure looks odd.
> > 
> > > +	if (p->correct) {
> > > +		percent = p->incorrect * 100;
> > > +		percent /= p->correct;
> >                 percent /= p->correct + p->incorect;
> 
> And once you do the above fix, I don't think what is below is
> necessary any more.  :-)

Bah! Total brain-fart.  Thanks ;-)

> 
> > > +		/* No need to see huge numbers */
> > > +		if (percent > 100)
> > > +			percent = 100;
> 
> I would also calculate the percent correct rather than the percent
> incorrect, on the general theory that 100% good, 0% bad is easier for
> my little brain to understand, but that's just a minor thing...

I thought about whether or not to show percent correct or precent 
incorrect.  I chose, incorrect, just because it is easier to spot the 
trouble makers.  You can say, lets allow 25% incorrect, better than saying 
lets have a minimum of 75%.  I think the mind can pick out those that go 
over a number better than it can see those that are under a number.

Thanks,

-- 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/