Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: >... > Also, Auke, if indeed compilers are [sic] likely to do better than > programmers adding un/likely wrappers, then why do we still support that in > the kernel? (Working for a company tat produces high-quality compilers, you > may

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Engelhardt writes: > > On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote: > > > >*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated > >probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and > > ;-) > > 19:1 <=> 95:5 <=> 95% <=>

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote: > >*That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated >probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and ;-) 19:1 <=> 95:5 <=> 95% <=> ratio=0.95 != 20.0 (=20/1) >you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Moffett writes: > On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote: [...] > > Recently we've done a full audit of the entire code, and added un/ > > likely where we felt that the chance of succeeding is 95% or better > > (e.g., error conditions that should

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kok, Auke" writes: I've been told several times that adding these is almost always bogus - either it messes up the CPU branch prediction or the compiler/CPU just does a lot better at finding the right way

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kok, Auke" writes: > Erez Zadok wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 > > +- > > 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes: Erez Zadok wrote: Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kok, Auke writes: I've been told several times that adding these is almost always bogus - either it messes up the CPU branch prediction or the compiler/CPU just does a lot better at finding the right way without

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kyle Moffett writes: On Sep 26, 2007, at 09:40:20, Erez Zadok wrote: [...] Recently we've done a full audit of the entire code, and added un/ likely where we felt that the chance of succeeding is 95% or better (e.g., error conditions that should rarely

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote: *That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and ;-) 19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0 (=20/1) you're telling me I should use 99% (100/1 ratio).

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Engelhardt writes: On Sep 26 2007 11:43, Erez Zadok wrote: *That's* the information I was looking for, Kyle: what's the estimated probability I should be using as my guideline. I used 95% (20/1 ratio), and ;-) 19:1 = 95:5 = 95% = ratio=0.95 != 20.0

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: ... Also, Auke, if indeed compilers are [sic] likely to do better than programmers adding un/likely wrappers, then why do we still support that in the kernel? (Working for a company tat produces high-quality compilers, you may know

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

Erez Zadok wrote: > Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +- > 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c > index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644

[PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644 --- a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c +++

[PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644 --- a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c +++

Re: [PATCH 10/25] Unionfs: add un/likely conditionals on copyup ops

Erez Zadok wrote: Signed-off-by: Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- fs/unionfs/copyup.c | 102 +- 1 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/unionfs/copyup.c b/fs/unionfs/copyup.c index 23ac4c8..e3c5f15 100644 ---