[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F450696.6010409@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:15:34 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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
On 02/22/2012 07:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 15:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>> Because it really just looks like a stronger "unlikely()" and
>>> fundamentally it really isn't. [...]
>>
>> Well, the fact is that right now it *is* a stronger unlikely()
>> on architectures that have jump-labels and it's mapped to
>> unlikely() on others.
>>
>
> Has gcc been fix to make it truly an unlikely case and remove the "jmp;
> jmp" problem of before? I'm still using gcc 4.6.0 which has the
> following code for a tracepoint (example is the
> trace_sched_migrate_task().
>
No, the jmp jmp problem still exists... I have discussed it with the gcc
folks and they have an idea for how to fix it, but I haven't even gotten
around to filing a formal RFE.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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