lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:24:27 -0400
Andrew James Wade <andrew.j.wade@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 October 2006 21:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > There are changes here: in the old code we'll avoid reading the static
> > variable. In the new code we'll read the static variable, but we'll avoid
> > evaluating the condition.
>
> Tim Chen's patch goes back to the old behaviour. I suspect the cache
> misses on __warn_once is what he is measuring. If so, the (untested)
> patch below should reduce the cache misses back to those of the old
> code.
>
> signed-off-by: Andrew Wade <andrew.j.wade@gmail.com>
> diff -rupN a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2006-10-03 13:58:40.000000000 -0400
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h 2006-10-03 23:17:37.000000000 -0400
> @@ -45,9 +45,10 @@
> static int __warn_once = 1; \
> typeof(condition) __ret_warn_once = (condition);\
> \
> - if (likely(__warn_once)) \
> - if (WARN_ON(__ret_warn_once)) \
> + if (unlikely(__ret_warn_once) && __warn_once) { \
> __warn_once = 0; \
> + WARN_ON(1); \
> + }; \
> unlikely(__ret_warn_once); \
> })

It might help, but we still don't know what's going on (I think).

I mean, if cache misses against __warn_once were sufficiently high for it
to affect performance, then __warn_once would be, err, in cache?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-04 05:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans