[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294064796.3948.12.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 09:26:36 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
npiggin@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: Should we be using unlikely() around tests of GFP_ZERO?
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 16:10 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > correct incorrect % Function File Line
> > ------- --------- - -------- ---- ----
> > 6890998 2784830 28 slab_alloc slub.c 1719
> >
> > That's incorrect 28% of the time.
>
> Thanks! AFAICT, that number is high enough to justify removing the
> unlikely() annotations, no?
Personally, I think anything that is incorrect more that 5% of the time
should not have any annotation.
My rule is to use the annotation when a branch goes one way 95% or more.
With the exception of times when we want a particular path to be the
faster path, because we know its in a more critical position (as there
are cases in the scheduler and the tracing infrastructure itself).
But here, I think removing it is the right decision.
-- 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