[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200903251431.09662.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:31:09 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ptrace: remove incorrect unlikelys
Am Wednesday 25 March 2009 08:21:29 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
> > @@ -1421,7 +1421,7 @@ asmregparm long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> > ret = -1L;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(current->audit_context)) {
> > + if (current->audit_context) {
>
> i suspect you got this result because you are running Fedora with
> auditd enabled and running, right? Does SuSE and Ubuntu run with
> auditing enabled as well? If yes then removing this annotation would
> be right - otherwise the auditing-enabled case is considered the
> less likely variant. (despite it being 100% wrong for your
> particular configuration)
Auditd can be enabled/disabled via kernel command line, no? In that case
there should be no unlikely and no likely. We should not optimize for a specific
value at compile time if the value can be changed at runtime.
This patch makes a lot of sense to me.
--
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