[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs
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.


H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-22 16:19    [W:0.061 / U:15.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site