Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:53:34 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |