lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] schedule: use unlikely()
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.

> > as the CPU/compiler almost always knows better.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> The compiler assumes that pointers are usually not NULL - but in this
> case, they are usually NULL. The compiler can't know better (unless
> profile feedback is used).

If you think so, great, but prove it, otherwise you are adding markup
that is not needed or could be harmful. :)

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 08:23    [W:0.080 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site