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

[H. Peter Anvin]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/