lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups + docs
On 02/21/2012 11:25 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> There is a fundamental assymetry, and intentionally so. You
> *really* have to think what the common case is, and make sure
> the build defaults to that. It's not the end of the world to
> have it flipped over, but there's costs and those costs are
> higher even in the branch path than a regular
> likely()/unlikely().
>

No, not really -- it's still an unconditional branch, which means you
will not tax the branch predictor in any way and which can be followed
by the front end without taking a speculation hit. So although there is
an out-of-line penalty -- which you hit for any conditional, after all
you can only have *one* piece of code which is straight line -- it
should be less than for a normal conditional branch.

> So you are rather wrong about your expectations - I think that
> is one more piece of evidence that the naming was less than
> optimal.
>
>> So the key aspect of this is the staticness of the
>> conditional, NOT the degree of bias of the branch. Hence my
>> past insistence on the "static_branch" name (rather than
>> "jump_label")... the branch part can be omitted, as an
>> implementation detail, but the staticness of it is its
>> absolutely key defining characteristic.
>
> I don't think you understand this facility as well as you think
> you do.

Uh, no, I do... see the above, but combine that of course with the sheer
astronomical cost of flipping the conditional.

-hpa


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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-22 08:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans