Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754084AbYJ1OsS (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:48:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752553AbYJ1OsG (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:48:06 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:56265 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752163AbYJ1OsF (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:48:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:48:16 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Theodore Tso Cc: Steven Rostedt , LKML , Mike Snitzer , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations Message-ID: <20081028074816.04193e04@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu> References: <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com> <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu> <20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.12; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1371 Lines: 34 On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400 Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:12:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Andrew Morton recently suggested having an in-kernel way to profile > > likely and unlikely macros. This patch achieves that goal. > > Maybe I'm confused, but when I read through the patch, it looks like > that 'hit' is incremented whenever the condition is true, and 'missed' > is incremented whenever the condition is false, correct? > > Is that what you intended? So for profile_unlikely, "missed" is good, > and "hit" is bad, and for profile_likely, "hit" is good, and "missed" > is bad. That seems horribly confusing. > > If that wasn't what you intended, the meaning of "hit" and "missed" > seems to be highly confusing, either way. Can we perhaps use some > other terminology? Simply using "True" and "False" would be better, > since there's no possible confusion what the labels mean. or "correct" and "incorrect" -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/