Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31541-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <3469483c-baf9-4df9-93ca-e5d8a1350511@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 13:20:05 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Remove unnecessary unlikely()
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240119163434.1357155-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <fe1f4fe8-48d8-4b09-bd50-36e8fd8e75cb@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <fe1f4fe8-48d8-4b09-bd50-36e8fd8e75cb@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/19/24 9:41 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/19/24 9:34 AM, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
>> Jens added unlikely() thinking that this was an error path.  It's
>> actually just the end of the iteration, so does not warrant an
>> unlikely().
> 
> This is because the previous fix (or my attempt at least) didn't do the
> i >= vcnt, it checked for an empty bio instead. Which then definitely
> did make it an error/unlikely path, but obviously this one is not.

Just out of curiosity, I did some branch profiling on just normal
operations of on my box. Of the ~900K times we hit this path,
10% of them ended up in that branch, and 90% of them did not.
While it's not an error path, that does seem rather unlikely. Sure, for
single entries, it'll be hit 50% of the time, but for most normal IO
it'd definitely be less than 50%, and as per above non-scientif
profiling, it's around 10%.

-- 
Jens Axboe