Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: fix 32-bit PIO regression

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello, I wrote:

> > The answer depends on workload.  Though rare, workloads do exist that 
> > involve a lot of oddball querying via weird, vendor-specific 
> > SCSI[-ish] commands.
>   Do you really think that the transfers having lengths non-divisible 
> by 4 make any *significant* percentage even on the ATAPI devices? I 
> think it's you who is really wrong.
>
>   Can you give an example of a *continous* querying with the data 
> transferring commands?
>   Hm, it just occured to me that the typical ATAPI command packet is 
> 12 bytes long.

  Haha, I even can't count! 12 divides by 4, of course. :-D

> > Or a more human version of the rule:  if you have to have a long 
> > email thread about unlikely() placement, it is best just to avoid 
> > using unlikely() in that case at all.  Branch prediction units in 
> > modern CPUs are damned good anyways, and there is always the 
> > likelihood that a human-placed unlikely() becomes wrong in the 
> > future. Moreover, the likelihood and cost of a branch mispredict are 
> > both low in this case, IMO.
>
>   There are still CPUs without the branch prediction, you know -- 
> Linux runs not only on x86.
>
> > Plus the code is more readable without unlikely(), IMO.
>
>   I tend to disagree. However, the packet command transfer is not 
> unlikely at all, so I'll remove that unlikely() in the respun patch.

  No, I'll keep it now. This case is indeed unlikely.

> >     Jeff

MBR, Sergei


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/