lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: aio is unlikely
On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:49:49 -0400
"Alex Volkov" <avcp-lkmail@usa.net> wrote:

>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > aio is unlikely
> > Stick an unlikely() around is_aio(): I assert that most IO is
> synchronous.
> >
> > -#define in_aio() !is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)
> > +#define in_aio() (unlikely(!is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)))
>
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > -#define in_aio() !is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)
> > > > +#define in_aio() (unlikely(!is_sync_wait(current->io_wait)))
> > >
> > > Please revert. Workload-dependent "likelihood" should not cause
> > > programmers to add such markers.
> > a) disagree with the above
> >
> > b) if in_aio() ever returns true we do
> >
> > printk(KERN_ERR "%s(%s:%d) called in async context!\n",
> > __FUNCTION__, __FILE__, __LINE__);
> >
> > so I sure hope it's unlikely for all workloads.
>
> Shouldn't unlikely() go where in_aio() is actually used, if we printk(error)
> there?
> Isn't putting likely/unlikely into a boolean function-like macro itself
> asking for later trouble?
>

Yes, if you agree with Jeff's original point.

But I don't, actually. Sure, on some machines+workloads, AIO is more
common than sync IO. But I expect that when we sum across all the
machines+workloads in the world, sync IO is more common and is hence the
case we should optimise for.

That's assuming that the unlikely() actually does something.
-
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: 2007-05-18 23:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans