Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753779AbZILWvs (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:51:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753334AbZILWvq (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:51:46 -0400 Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org ([78.24.191.182]:41940 "EHLO eddie.linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789AbZILWvq (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:51:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:51:40 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Daniel Walker cc: Cyrill Gorcunov , Ingo Molnar , Julia Lawall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: apic: convert BUG() to BUG_ON() In-Reply-To: <1252779641.28368.81.camel@desktop> Message-ID: References: <1252777220-30796-1-git-send-email-dwalker@fifo99.com> <20090912180527.GA4893@lenovo> <1252779641.28368.81.camel@desktop> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) 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: 1588 Lines: 32 On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Daniel Walker wrote: > For one it condenses duplicate code (i.e. the if()). If the BUG_ON() > macro gets updated with something new, all the users get the updates > automatically. The other thing is your re-using potentially more > advanced code that's inside the macro. In this case it's fairly trivial, > > #define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while(0) > > So we're getting the benefit on the new "unlikely" in the apic code. > unlikely/likely calls will usually allow the compiler to create smaller, > and or, more optimized code. For non-x86 platforms the use of the BUG_ON() macro may result in more efficient code GCC may not be able to optimise to with if (...) BUG();. For example the macro may expand to inline assembly with a conditional trap instruction GCC would not emit for an if () clause. While GCC does have a __builtin_trap() intrinsic that could be optimised if alone in a conditional block, such usage may not be frequent enough for a dedicated optimisation to be provided and build-time efficiency of the compiler does matter too, so such an optimisation might be of too questionable a value to incur an additional performance hit for the compiler. Just a general note on patches of this kind, or to put it short, yes I agree it's a good idea. Maciej -- 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/