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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>
References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com>
 <b5bae2981e27d133b61d99b08ee60244bf7aabe3.camel@perches.com>
 <20190901172403.GA1047@bug>
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
Message-ID: <45362841-2ae6-e946-2ae0-ab56a98f15ca@linux.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Sep 2019 20:39:30 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190901172403.GA1047@bug>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 01.09.2019 20:24, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>>> 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.
>>
>> btw: there are relatively few uses like this in the kernel.
>>
>> $ git grep -P '!\s*(?:un)?likely\s*\(' | wc -l
>> 40
>>
>> afaict: It may save 2 bytes of x86/64 object code.
>>
>> For instance:
>>
>> $ diff -urN kernel/tsacct.lst.old kernel/tsacct.lst.new|less
>> --- kernel/tsacct.lst.old       2019-08-25 09:21:39.936570183 -0700
>> +++ kernel/tsacct.lst.new       2019-08-25 09:22:20.774324886 -0700
>> @@ -24,158 +24,153 @@
>>    15:  48 89 fb                mov    %rdi,%rbx
>>         u64 time, delta;
>>  
>> -       if (!likely(tsk->mm))
>> +       if (unlikely(tsk->mm))
> 
> Are you sure this is equivalent?
> 
> 									Pavel

Hi,

No, it's not correct. Thanks Rasmus for clarifying the things here.
This was my mistake. As a human, I failed to parse "likely" and "!"
and made too hasty conclusions :)

The correct transformation is in v2. This will be
!likely(tsk->mm) -> unlikely(!tsk->mm)

Thanks,
Denis