Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754618AbYJ1TX2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:23:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752607AbYJ1TXU (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:23:20 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:54200 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751800AbYJ1TXU (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:23:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Theodore Tso , LKML , Mike Snitzer , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations In-Reply-To: <20081028074816.04193e04@infradead.org> Message-ID: References: <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com> <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu> <20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu> <20081028074816.04193e04@infradead.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1510 Lines: 37 On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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" This means that the code will need to be different for both. Or at least a way to differentiate between the two. Not that hard, but I wanted to make the code as trivial as possible. -- Steve -- 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/