[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D42A23B.4090302@coly.li>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:02:19 +0800
From: Coly Li <i@...y.li>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...hat.com>
CC: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Coly Li <bosong.ly@...bao.com>,
Wang Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] PowerPC: add unlikely() to BUG_ON()
On 2011年01月28日 18:14, Andreas Schwab Wrote:
> "David Laight"<David.Laight@...LAB.COM> writes:
>
>> Also, as (I think) in some of the generated code quoted,
>> use of __builtin_expect() with a boolean expression can
>> force some versions of gcc to generate the integer
>> value of the expression
>
> That's more likely a side effect of the definition of likely/unlikely:
> they expand to !!(x).
>
It seems whether or not using unlikely() inside arch implemented BUG_ON() is arch dependent. Maybe a reasonable method
to use BUG_ON() is,
1) do not explicitly use unlikely() when using macro BUG_ON().
2) whether or not using unlikely() inside BUG_ON(), it depends on the implementation of BUG_ON(), including arch
implementation.
So from current feed back, doing "unlikely() optimization" here doesn't make anything better.
Thanks for all of your feed back :-)
--
Coly Li
--
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