On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote:Hmm, even still I agree with Auke, you probably use it too much. Actually due to the performance penalty on some systems I think you only want to use it if the chance of succeeding is 99% or better, as the benefit if predicted is a cycle or two and the harm if mispredicted can be more than 50 cycles, depending on the CPU. You should also remember than in filesystems many "failures" are triggered by things like the ld.so library searches, where it literally calls access() 20 different times on various possible paths for library files, failing the first 19. It does this once for each necessary library. Typically you only want to add unlikely() or likely() for about 2 reasons: (A) It's a hot path and the unlikely case is just going to burn a bunch of CPU anyways (B) It really is extremely unlikely that it fails (Think physical hardware failure) Anything else is just bogus. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Tomasz Kłoczko | Is it time for remove (crap) ALSA from kernel tree ? |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Paweł Staszewski | iproute2 action/policer question |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
