Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755715AbYJ3PKx (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754374AbYJ3PKm (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:42 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:46363 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754289AbYJ3PKl (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:10:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Theodore Tso cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= , LKML , Arjan van de Ven , Mike Snitzer , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Daniel Walker , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations In-Reply-To: <20081030145543.GC14744@mit.edu> Message-ID: References: <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com> <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu> <20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu> <20081028074816.04193e04@infradead.org> <20081030143238.GB7157@logfs.org> <20081030145543.GC14744@mit.edu> 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: 1725 Lines: 46 On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 03:32:39PM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote: > > On Wed, 29 October 2008 18:39:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > > 69768 61064 87 __switch_to process_64.c 624 > > > 15557 115251 100 __switch_to process_64.c 594 > > > 15555 115227 100 __switch_to process_64.c 590 > > > > I may be out of school for a while, but that math sure looks odd. > > > > > + if (p->correct) { > > > + percent = p->incorrect * 100; > > > + percent /= p->correct; > > percent /= p->correct + p->incorect; > > And once you do the above fix, I don't think what is below is > necessary any more. :-) Bah! Total brain-fart. Thanks ;-) > > > > + /* No need to see huge numbers */ > > > + if (percent > 100) > > > + percent = 100; > > I would also calculate the percent correct rather than the percent > incorrect, on the general theory that 100% good, 0% bad is easier for > my little brain to understand, but that's just a minor thing... I thought about whether or not to show percent correct or precent incorrect. I chose, incorrect, just because it is easier to spot the trouble makers. You can say, lets allow 25% incorrect, better than saying lets have a minimum of 75%. I think the mind can pick out those that go over a number better than it can see those that are under a number. Thanks, -- 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/