| To: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: likely and unlikely was: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr |
| From: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:34:59 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4808488A.7010204@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080319204014.GA23644@xxxxxx> <ncciqylf7q0.fsf@xxxxxxx> <20080414032940.GA10579@xxxxxx> <ncclk3ejwam.fsf@xxxxxxx> <20080416063712.GN108924158@xxxxxxx> <4805A589.7080906@xxxxxxx> <87ve2i5kbs.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4808488A.7010204@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20060911) |
Timothy Shimmin wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the explanation, Andi. > So I guess the upshot is, that it can make a difference but > in many cases (where the perf difference isn't an issue) > it is probably not worth the ugliness. > And in performance cases, it would be best to test the hypothesis > with the unlikely profiler patch > => it will be _unlikely_ we will bother ;-) > So I don't think I'll be bothering with them then unless > an issue comes up :) Ideal would be to not bother by default, but occasionally run oprofile with icache and branch misprediction profiling for macro benchmarks (significant user space code running) and if you see any icache miss/mispredict hot spots in your code add the annotations there and then double check with the unlikely profiler. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | COOLTRICKS list request notification, L-Soft list server at AudetteMedia (1.8d) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: likely and unlikely was: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | likely and unlikely was: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, Timothy Shimmin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: likely and unlikely was: Re: [PATCH] split xfs_ioc_xattr, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |