Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <84c7410d1d3ef56370c698c4e603e5422e337abc.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
Cc:     cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 04:59:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <95c32d19-eb4d-a214-6332-038610ec3dbd@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com>
         <b5bae2981e27d133b61d99b08ee60244bf7aabe3.camel@perches.com>
         <88f6e48e-1230-9488-a973-397f4e6dfbb5@linux.com>
         <4E9DDF9E-C883-44F0-A3F4-CD49284DB60D@lip6.fr>
         <95c32d19-eb4d-a214-6332-038610ec3dbd@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 13:33 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 25/08/2019 21.19, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On 26 Aug 2019, at 02:59, Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com> wrote:
> > > > On 25.08.2019 19:37, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2019-08-25 at 16:05 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> > > > > This patch adds coccinelle script for detecting !likely and !unlikely
> > > > > usage. It's better to use unlikely instead of !likely and vice versa.
> > > > Please explain _why_ is it better in the changelog.
> > > In my naive understanding the negation (!) before the likely/unlikely
> > > could confuse the compiler
> > As a human I am confused. Is !likely(x) equivalent to x or !x?
> 
> #undef likely
> #undef unlikely
> #define likely(x) (x)
> #define unlikely(x) (x)
> 
> should be a semantic no-op. So changing !likely(x) to unlikely(x) is
> completely wrong. If anything, !likely(x) can be transformed to
> unlikely(!x).

likely and unlikely use __builtin_expect

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fexpect
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7346929/what-is-the-advantage-of-gccs-builtin-expect-in-if-else-statements

It's probable that of the more than 20K uses of
likely and unlikely in the kernel, most have no
real performance effect.