[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7479958c-1932-4ced-a7a4-53ac6ea3a38e@email.android.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:01:03 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.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
Stupid thought... do we have cases that matter where the bias and default don't agree?
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>* 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
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse my brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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