On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:57:57 +0400
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Guys. Please. Help us out here. None of this makes sense, and it's
> > possible that we have an underlying problem in there which we need to
> know
> > about.
> This is explantion:
>
> The static variable __warn_once was "never" read (until there is no bug)
> before patch "Let WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE return the condition"
> http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commi
> t;h=684f978347deb42d180373ac4c427f82ef963171
> in WARN_ON_ONCE's line
> - if (unlikely((condition) && __warn_once)) { \
> because 'condition' is false. There was no cache miss as a result.
>
> Cache miss for __warn_once is happened in new lines
> + if (likely(__warn_once)) \
> + if (WARN_ON(__ret_warn_once)) \
>
That's one cache miss. One. For the remainder of the benchmark,
__warn_once is in cache and there are no more misses. That's how caches
work ;)
But it appears this isn't happening. Why?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
