Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups+ docs

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* H. Peter Anvin (hpa@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 12:39 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:20 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm not really too hung up on the naming, but I did think that
> >> very_[un]likely were an interesting possibility.
> > 
> > The problem comes from what Peter said. They are too similar to
> > "likely()" and "unlikely()", and can become confusing.
> > 
> > Maybe "static_likely()" and "static_unlikely()" as the word "static" can
> > imply something strange about these. Or perhaps a "const_likely()"?
> > 
> > Maybe "dynamic_branch_true()" and "dynamic_branch_false()". This may be
> > the most descriptive.
> > 
> 
> I thought about this some more, and the very_[un]likely() naming is even
> worse than I originally thought: the jump label stuff isn't about the
> bias level, but rather if a static decision (on the order or once per
> boot) can be made to go one way or the other.
> 
> 	-hpa

I agree that this decision is taken typically once at boot time, so
claiming it is only a strong compiler bias hint for block placement
would be a lie. However, I think the fact that the fall-through is for
either true or false branch seems to be an implicit bias. Therefore, I
start to like the static_likely()/static_unlikely(), which conveys both
the static nature of the branch, as well as the bias.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/