lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] schedule: use unlikely()
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:04:01AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 07:05:22PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 02:00:45PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > > A small patch for schedule(), so that the code goes straght in the common
> > > > > case.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Was this a measurable difference? If so, great, please provide the
> > > > numbers and how you tested in the changelog. If it can't be measured,
> > > > then it is not worth it to add these markings
> > >
> > > It is much easier to make microoptimizations (such as using likely() and
> > > unlikely()) than to measure their effect.
> > >
> > > If a programmer were required to measure performance every time he uses
> > > likely() or unlikely() in his code, he wouldn't use them at all.
> >
> > If you can not measure it, you should not use it. You are forgetting
> > about the testing that was done a few years ago that found that some
> > huge percentage (80? 75? 90?) of all of these markings were wrong and
> > harmful or did absolutely nothing.
>
> The whole kernel has 19878 likely/unlikely tags.

And most of them are wrong. Don't add new ones unless you can prove it
is correct.

> Do you have benchmark proving efficiency for each of them? :-)

Yes, people have done this work in the past, see the archives.

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-30 09:08    [W:0.139 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site