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

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> But it is fundamentally mixing execution and *data type* and
> it is not conveying the build time bias properly.
>
> So the best high level naming would be something like:
>
> struct static_condition static_flag = STATIC_COND_FALSE;
>
>
> if (very_unlikely(&static_flag)) {
> ...
> }
>
> ...
>
> static_cond_inc(&static_flag);
> ...
> static_cond_dec(&static_flag);

Btw., I think the modification path could also carry the high
cost of modification (stopping all cpus, modifying code, etc.).

This could be done via:

static_cond_slow_inc(&static_flag);
...
static_cond_slow_dec(&static_flag);

And if a developer does not notice that 'slow' implies a
performance cost, then he probably would have doubly missed this
aspect of jump_label_inc()/jump_label_dec().

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-22 08:57    [W:0.085 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site