LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810272316270.802@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

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.   

> +#define unlikely(x) ({							\
> +			int ______r;					\
> +			static struct ftrace_likely_data ______f	\
> +				__attribute__((__aligned__(4)))		\
> +				__attribute__((section("_ftrace_unlikely"))); \
> +			if (unlikely_notrace(!______f.ip))		\
> +				______f.ip = __THIS_IP__;		\
> +			______r = unlikely_notrace(x);			\
> +			ftrace_likely_update(&______f, ______r);	\
> +			______r;					\
> +		})

Note that unlikely(x) calls ftrace_likely_update(), which does this:

> +void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_likely_data *f, int val)
> +{
> +	/* FIXME: Make this atomic! */
> +	if (val)
> +		f->hit++;
> +	else
> +		f->missed++;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ftrace_likely_update);


So that seems to mean that if unlikely(x) is false, then _____r is 0,
which means we increment f->missed.   Or am I missing something?

I would have thought that if unlikely(x) is false, that's *good*,
since it means the unlikely label was correct.  And normally, when
people think about cache hits vs cache misses, hits are good and
misses are bad.  Which is why I think the terminology is highly
confusing...

      	       		 	      	    - Ted

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-10-28 14:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810271918390.19731@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
     [not found]   ` <20081028001340.GB9797@mit.edu>
2008-10-28  4:12     ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-28  4:23       ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-28  4:39       ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-28 14:37       ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2008-10-28 14:48         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-28 14:51           ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-29 16:35             ` [PATCH 1/2 v2][RFC] " Steven Rostedt
2008-10-29 16:38               ` [PATCH 2/2 v2][RFC] ftrace: unlikely annotation tracer Steven Rostedt
2008-10-29 16:40               ` [PATCH 1/2 v2][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-29 22:39               ` [PATCH 1/2 v3][RFC] " Steven Rostedt
2008-10-29 22:40                 ` [PATCH 2/2 v3][RFC] ftrace: unlikely annotation tracer Steven Rostedt
2008-10-30 14:32                 ` [PATCH 1/2 v3][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations Jörn Engel
2008-10-30 14:55                   ` Theodore Tso
2008-10-30 15:10                     ` Steven Rostedt
2008-10-28 14:49         ` [PATCH][RFC] " Steven Rostedt
2008-10-28 18:29           ` Theodore Tso
2008-10-28 18:41             ` Steven Rostedt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081028143720.GD8869@mit.edu \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=snitzer@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH][RFC] trace: profile likely and unlikely annotations' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).