Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752920Ab0LCPqg (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:46:36 -0500 Received: from mail.openrapids.net ([64.15.138.104]:48193 "EHLO blackscsi.openrapids.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045Ab0LCPqf (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:46:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:46:33 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Linus Torvalds , Theodore Tso , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing: Add TRACE_EVENT_CONDITIONAL() Message-ID: <20101203154633.GA25790@Krystal> References: <20101203040358.955427199@goodmis.org> <20101203040822.144348122@goodmis.org> <20101203045402.GA29609@Krystal> <1291385344.3228.4.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20101203152733.GA25580@Krystal> <1291390727.3228.10.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1291390727.3228.10.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://www.efficios.com X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-2-686 (i686) X-Uptime: 10:44:37 up 9 days, 20:47, 3 users, load average: 0.12, 0.03, 0.01 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1388 Lines: 39 * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:27 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > > TP_CONDITION(unlikely(someparam)), > > > > > > I actually think this is an abuse of "unlikely". > > > > Why are you considering this an abuse ? > > Because it is overused. I would rather get rid of most unlikely()'s > because they are mostly meaningless. Just run the unlikely profiler, and > you will see a large number of them are just plain incorrect. > > Adding them here probably doesn't do any good. The only reason for this > TP_CONDITION() is to ignore those cases that it just does not make sense > to trace. Like a wake up tracepoint that does not wake anything up. No > need for "unlikely" or "likely", by trying to do that, you will most > likely get it wrong. > > unlikely(use_likely_correctly) Ah OK. You are afraid that people will misuse it, not saying that it would be technically incorrect. Fair enough. It sounds like a good enough reason for not documenting this use-case. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/