[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120222075334.GA25053@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:53:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
davem@...emloft.net, ddaney.cavm@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups +
docs
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> But it is fundamentally mixing execution and *data type* and
> it is not conveying the build time bias properly.
>
> So the best high level naming would be something like:
>
> struct static_condition static_flag = STATIC_COND_FALSE;
>
>
> if (very_unlikely(&static_flag)) {
> ...
> }
>
> ...
>
> static_cond_inc(&static_flag);
> ...
> static_cond_dec(&static_flag);
Btw., I think the modification path could also carry the high
cost of modification (stopping all cpus, modifying code, etc.).
This could be done via:
static_cond_slow_inc(&static_flag);
...
static_cond_slow_dec(&static_flag);
And if a developer does not notice that 'slow' implies a
performance cost, then he probably would have doubly missed this
aspect of jump_label_inc()/jump_label_dec().
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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