From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: why unlikely(rsv) in ext3_clear_inode()? Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:21:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com> <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Mike Snitzer , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:36167 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750842AbYJ1AWs (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:22:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:32:11PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Attached is a patch that I used for counting. > > > > Here's my results: > > # cat /debug/tracing/ftrace_null > > 45 > > # cat /debug/tracing/ftrace_nonnull > > 7 > > > > Ah, seems that there is cases where it is nonnull more often. Anyway, it > > obviously is not a fast path (total of 52). Even if it was all null, it is > > not big enough to call for the confusion. > > Silly question --- what was your test workload? Hehe, I just booted the box. The counting started right away, so I just looked at the work load. Anyway, I'm writing a generic "unlikely" profiler that should make Andrew happy. And this will also catch this case as well. -- Steve