> Is it possible to catch this automatically, like, by re-defining
> likely/unlikely to the raw form in specific file(s)?
Sure it would be possible to define a IN_VDSO symbol in all vdso
related files and then do that. Might be useful for other things
too. vdso has some very specific requirements.
> > Is there any reason they couldn't just be merged to mainline?
> >
> > I think it's a useful facility.
>
> ummm, now why did we made that decision... I think we decided that
> it's the sort of thing which one person can run once per few months
> and that will deliver its full value. I can mai
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:15:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> >> -41525 2066 f, 3370 +, 44895 -, diff: -41525 IS_ERR
> >
> > This is a surprise. I expect that the -mm-only
> > profile-likely-unlikely-macros.patch is the cause of th
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> >> -41525 2066 f, 3370 +, 44895 -, diff: -41525 IS_ERR
> >
> > This is a surprise. I expect that the -mm-only
> > profile-likely-unlikely-macros.patch is the cause of this and mainline
> > doesn't have t
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -41525 2066 f, 3370 +, 44895 -, diff: -41525 IS_ERR
>
> This is a surprise. I expect that the -mm-only
> profile-likely-unlikely-macros.patch is the cause of this and mainline
> doesn't have this problem.
Shouldn't they only have overhead when the
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:47:10 +0200 "Ilpo J__rvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -41525 2066 f, 3370 +, 44895 -, diff: -41525 IS_ERR
>
> This is a surprise.
It surprised me as well, there were something like 10 bytes I just
couldn't explain i
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:47:10 +0200 "Ilpo J__rvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, here's the top of the list (1+ bytes):
This is good stuff - thanks.
> -41525 2066 f, 3370 +, 44895 -, diff: -41525 IS_ERR
This is a surprise. I expect that the -mm-only
profile-likely-unlikely-macros.pa
Hi all,
I run some lengthy tests to measure cost of inlines in headers under
include/, simple coverage calculations yields to 89% but most of the
failed compiles are due to preprocessor cutting the tested block away
anyway. Test setup: v2.6.24-mm1, make allyesconfig, 32-bit x86,
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20
Hi all,
I run some lengthy tests to measure cost of inlines in headers under
include/, simple coverage calculations yields to 89% but most of the
failed compiles are due to preprocessor cutting the tested block away
anyway. Test setup: v2.6.24-mm1, make allyesconfig, 32-bit x86,
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20
