From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753167Ab2BVPNN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:13:13 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60013 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751845Ab2BVPNM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:13:12 -0500
Message-ID: <1329923583.24994.21.camel@twins>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups
 + docs
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, rth <rth@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:13:03 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1329918881.25686.92.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
References: <cover.1329851692.git.jbaron@redhat.com>
	 <4F43F9F0.4000605@zytor.com> <20120222065016.GA16923@elte.hu>
	 <4F44934B.2000808@zytor.com> <20120222072538.GA17291@elte.hu>
	 <4F449ACF.3040807@zytor.com> <20120222074839.GA24890@elte.hu>
	 <efc1cd8f-7114-460b-a704-a3e533d48d02@email.android.com>
	 <20120222080659.GA25318@elte.hu>
	 <1329916920.25686.79.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20120222133404.GA14085@elte.hu>
	 <1329918881.25686.92.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 08:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But we could push a "unlikely(static_branch())" for
> such a case (or keep it as very_unlikely()). 

If only that would work.. GCC assumes a bunch of things when you use
'asm goto'. An unbiased 'asm goto' that would take likely() and
unlikely() hints would be ideal, but alas that's not how the thing got
implemented.

Now arguable we could maybe just stick with the static_branch() thing
and decide that GCC is broken for adding bias and not respecting
likely() and unlikely(), but the GCC folks might have an opinion there.

Anyway, if we have to stick with the current implementation then an
unbiased version is impossible to implement.

If we get GCC folks on board to change stuff, who knows.