[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291390727.3228.10.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:38:47 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing: Add TRACE_EVENT_CONDITIONAL()
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:27 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > TP_CONDITION(unlikely(someparam)),
> >
> > I actually think this is an abuse of "unlikely".
>
> Why are you considering this an abuse ?
Because it is overused. I would rather get rid of most unlikely()'s
because they are mostly meaningless. Just run the unlikely profiler, and
you will see a large number of them are just plain incorrect.
Adding them here probably doesn't do any good. The only reason for this
TP_CONDITION() is to ignore those cases that it just does not make sense
to trace. Like a wake up tracepoint that does not wake anything up. No
need for "unlikely" or "likely", by trying to do that, you will most
likely get it wrong.
unlikely(use_likely_correctly)
-- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists